ArticleNPJ digital medicine2020
Design and testing of a mobile health application rating tool.
Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
35 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Observational
- Systematic and Collaborative Approach to Learning and Educational Content Development (SCALED) for Health Apps: An Experience-Informed Conceptual Framework.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2026Article
- The Role of Rating Valence in AI Skin Cancer App Acceptance: Eye-Tracking and Questionnaire Study.JMIR human factors · 2026Article
- Limited validity of an AI-powered app for dietary assessment in females with obesity.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Frameworks for assessing digital health technologies: a scoping review.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2026Article
- Exploring the Mechanisms of Digital Health Technology-Driven Exercise During Pregnancy: A Realist Review.International journal of women's health · 2026Review
- An assessment of the quality and readability level of online content on urinary tract infection treatment in Spanish and English.Translational andrology and urology · 2025Article
- Quality and Privacy Policy Compliance of Mental Health Care Apps in China: Cross-Sectional Evaluation Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Exploration of Reproductive Health Apps' Data Privacy Policies and the Risks Posed to Users: Qualitative Content Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Developing and validating a content quality evaluation tool for cancer mobile applications.BMC cancer · 2024Article
- The Effect of Informative Mobile App Use on Anxiety, Distress, and Quality of Life of Women With Breast Cancer.European journal of breast health · 2024Article
- Clinical Validation of Digital Healthcare Solutions: State of the Art, Challenges and Opportunities.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- The Effectiveness of Publicly Available Web-Based Interventions in Promoting Health App Use, Digital Health Literacy, and Media Literacy: Pre-Post Evaluation Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Article
- The Internet, Apps, and the Anesthesiologist.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Mobile Apps to Improve Brace-Wearing Compliance in Patients with Idiopathic Scoliosis: A Quality Analysis, Functionality Review and Future Directions.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Digital Tools Designed to Obtain the History of Present Illness From Patients: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Article
- Health app policy: international comparison of nine countries' approaches.NPJ digital medicine · 2022Article
- Update on Cyber Health Psychology: Virtual Reality and Mobile Health Tools in Psychotherapy, Clinical Rehabilitation, and Addiction Treatment.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Review
- Parents' Experience With a Mobile Health Intervention to Influence Human Papillomavirus Vaccination Decision Making: Mixed Methods Study.JMIR pediatrics and parenting · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mobile health applications ("apps") have rapidly proliferated, yet their ability to improve outcomes for patients remains unclear. A validated tool that addresses apps' potentially important dimensions has not been available to patients and clinicians. The objective of this study was to develop and preliminarily assess a usable, valid, and open-source rating tool to objectively measure the risks and benefits of health apps. We accomplished this by using a Delphi process, where we constructed an app rating tool called THESIS that could promote informed app selection. We used a systematic process to select chronic disease apps with ≥4 stars and <4-stars and then rated them with THESIS to examine the tool's interrater reliability and internal consistency. We rated 211 apps, finding they performed fair overall (3.02 out of 5 [95% CI, 2.96-3.09]), but especially poorly for privacy/security (2.21 out of 5 [95% CI, 2.11-2.32]), interoperability (1.75 [95% CI, 1.59-1.91]), and availability in multiple languages (1.43 out of 5 [95% CI, 1.30-1.56]). Ratings using THESIS had fair interrater reliability (
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.