ReviewCentral European journal of urology2020
A content analysis of 'Water Apps' and prevention of urological diseases: Do apps really help?
Review in Central European journal of urology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionMaintaining hydration reduces incidence of kidney stone disease (KSD), chronic kidney disease (CKD) and urinary tract infections (UTIs). Mobile applications (apps) measuring hydration are gaining in usage, allowing users to monitor intake whilst also taking into account the signs and symptoms of dehydration. Our study looked at the water apps in the management and/or prevention of urological disease. MATERIAL AND
methodsThe original android app store (Google Play Store), and the Apple App Store (iOS App Store) were searched using the term 'hydration', 'fluid' and 'water'. All apps from each distribution platform, with a minimum of 100 reviews, were then selected and analysed.
resultsAfter identification of 51 applications (13 from Apple App Store, and 38 from Google Play Store), 45 were free to download and 6 were paid (cost range: $2.19-$7.97). While none of the apps facilitated measurement of urine output and colour, 12 mentioned signs and symptoms of dehydration. Furthermore, when calculating required fluid intake, the level of activity was considered by 31 apps. With regards to information provision, only one of the apps included advice or education about urological conditions associated with poor hydration. None of the apps gave advice on hydration related to CKD and UTI.
conclusionsMobile phone apps are a well-established tool for measuring fluid intake. However, they provide little information regarding the importance of hydration, and don't utilise other measures such as level of activity, urine output or colour. Considering the increasing popularity of fitness and hydration apps in our daily lives, the developers need to make them more comprehensive and informative.
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.