Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33104013›Full record

ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2020

Weight Management Apps in Saudi Arabia: Evaluation of Features and Quality.

Dalal M Alshathri, Abeer S Alhumaimeedy, Ghada Al-Hudhud, Aseel Alsaleh, Sara Al-Musharaf, Ghadeer S Aljuraiban

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Inequalities in Exclusively Mobile Interventions Targeting Weight-Related Behaviors: Systematic Review of Observational Studies.Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Dalal M AlshathriDepartment of Nutrition, Security Forces Hospital Program, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.ORCID 0000-0001-7823-9386
Abeer S AlhumaimeedyDepartment of Software Engineering, College of Computer and Information Sciences, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.ORCID 0000-0003-3388-6808
Ghada Al-HudhudDepartment of Information Technology, College of Computer and Information Sciences, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.ORCID 0000-0002-2810-6582
Aseel AlsalehFamily and Community Medicine Department, College of Medicine, Arabian Gulf University, Manama, Bahrain.ORCID 0000-0003-4652-2341
Sara Al-MusharafDepartment of Community Health Sciences, College of Applied Medical Sciences, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.ORCID 0000-0002-7830-1415
Ghadeer S AljuraibanDepartment of Community Health Sciences, College of Applied Medical Sciences, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.ORCID 0000-0002-4866-5461

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWeight management apps may provide support and management options for individuals with overweight and obesity. Research on the quality of weight management mHealth apps among the Saudi population is insufficient despite frequent use.

objectiveThe aims of this study were to explore user perceptions of weight management apps, explore reasons for starting and stopping app use, appraise the quality of weight management apps available in the App Store, and compare the features currently available within the app market and those that are most desirable to weight management app users.

methodsA web-based survey consisted of 31 open and closed questions about sociodemographic information, general health questions, app use, app user perceptions, and discontinuation of app use. The quality of the weight management apps available on the App Store was assessed using the Mobile App Rating Scale and evidence-based strategies. We also used six sigma evaluations to ensure that the quality measured by the tools consistently meets customer expectations.

resultsData from the survey were analyzed. Of the respondents, 30.17% (324/1074) had used a weight management app, 18.16% (195/1074) used the apps and stopped, and 51.68% (555/1074) had never used a weight management app. Of apps mentioned, 23 met the inclusion criteria. The overall average Mobile App Rating Scale quality of apps was acceptable; 30% (7/23) received a quality mean score of 4 or higher (out of 5), and 30% (7/23) did not meet the acceptability score of 3 or higher. Evidence-based strategy results showed that feedback was not observed in any of the apps, and motivation strategy was observed in only 1 app. The sigma results of evidence-based strategies reflect that most of the apps fail to pass the mean.

conclusionsApp users desired a feature that allows them to communicate with a specialist, which is a missing in the available free apps. Despite the large number and accessibility of weight management apps, the quality and features of most are variable. It can be concluded from six sigma results that passing the mean does not ensure that the quality is consistently distributed through all app quality properties and Mobile App Rating Scale and evidence-based strategies do not give developers an indication of the acceptance of their apps by mobile users. This finding stresses the importance of reevaluating the passing criterion, which is ≥50% for designing an effective app.

Indexed as

Mobile ApplicationsNutrition TherapyTelemedicineHumansOverweightSaudi ArabiaeHealthMARSmHealthmobile appsobesitysix sigmasmartphoneweight management

Identifiers

PMID33104013
PMCPMC7652688

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.