ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2020
Evaluation Criteria for Weight Management Apps: Validation Using a Modified Delphi Process.
Article in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 11 papers.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mobile Health App Attitudes and Adoption Among Oncology Providers: Cross-Sectional National Survey.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Validation and selection of criteria for evaluating apps for managing depression: a Delphi study.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Validation of a personalized AI prompt generator (NExGEN-ChatGPT) for obesity management using fuzzy Delphi method.Biology methods & protocols · 2025Article
- Validation of a national leadership framework to promote and protect quality residential aged care: protocol for a Delphi study.BMJ open · 2024Article
- A sociotechnical framework to assess patient-facing eHealth tools: results of a modified Delphi process.NPJ digital medicine · 2023Article
- A Proposal for a Robust Validated Weighted General Data Protection Regulation-Based Scale to Assess the Quality of Privacy Policies of Mobile Health Applications: An eDelphi Study.Methods of information in medicine · 2023Article
- Assessing the Quality and Impact of eHealth Tools: Systematic Literature Review and Narrative Synthesis.JMIR human factors · 2023Review
- Article
- RWD-Cockpit: Application for Quality Assessment of Real-world Data.JMIR formative research · 2022Article
- Codesign and Feasibility Testing of a Tool to Evaluate Overweight and Obesity Apps.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe use of apps for weight management has increased over recent years; however, there is a lack of evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of these apps. The EVALAPPS project will develop and validate an assessment instrument to specifically assess the safety and efficacy of weight management apps.
objectiveThe aim of this study was to reach a consensus among stakeholders on a comprehensive set of criteria to guide development of the EVALAPPS assessment instrument. A modified Delphi process was used in order to verify the robustness of the criteria that had been identified through a literature review and to prioritize a set of the identified criteria.
methodsStakeholders (n=31) were invited to participate in a 2-round Delphi process with 114 initial criteria that had been identified from the literature. In round 1, participants rated criteria according to relevance on a scale from 0 ("I suggest this criterion is excluded") to 5 ("This criterion is extremely relevant"). A criterion was accepted if the median rating was 4 or higher and if the relative intraquartile range was equal to 0.67 or lower. In round 2, participants were asked about criteria that had been discarded in round 1. A prioritization strategy was used to identify crucial criteria according to (1) the importance attributed by participants (criteria with a mean rating of 4.00 or higher), (2) the level of consensus (criteria with a score of 4 or 5 by at least 80% of the participants).
resultsThe response rate was 83.9% (26/31) in round 1 and 90.3% (28/31) in round 2. A total of 107 out of 114 criteria (93.9%) were accepted by consensus-105 criteria in round 1 and 2 criteria in round 2. After prioritization, 53 criteria were deemed crucial. These related mainly to the dimensions of security and privacy (13/53, 24.5%) and usability (9/53, 17.0%), followed by activity data (5/53, 9.4%), clinical effectiveness (5/53, 9.4%), and reliability (5/53, 9.4%).
conclusionsResults confirmed the robustness of the criteria that were identified, with those relating to security and privacy being deemed most relevant by stakeholders. Additionally, a specific set of criteria based on health indicators (activity data, physical state data, and personal data) was also prioritized.
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.