Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33718002›Full record

ArticleInternet interventions2021

Systematic evaluation of content and quality of English and German pain apps in European app stores.

Yannik Terhorst, Eva-Maria Messner, Dana Schultchen, Sarah Paganini, Alexandra Portenhauser, Anna-Sophia Eder, Melanie Bauer, Mike Papenhoff, Harald Baumeister, Lasse Bosse Sander

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Internet interventions, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Evaluation of temporomandibular disorder self-management apps in Australia: a systematic review to inform clinical use.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2025
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Quality assessment of mHealth apps: a scoping review.Frontiers in health services · 2024
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. A systematic quality rating of available mobile health apps for borderline personality disorder.Borderline personality disorder and emotion dysregulation · 2022
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

10 authors.

Yannik TerhorstDepartment of Research Methods, Institute of Psychology and Education, Ulm University, Albert-Einstein-Allee 47, 89069 Ulm, Germany.
Eva-Maria MessnerDepartment of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Institute of Psychology and Education, Ulm University, Lise-Meitner-Str. 16, 89081 Ulm, Germany.
Dana SchultchenDepartment of Clinical and Health Psychology, Institute of Psychology and Education, Ulm University, Albert-Einstein-Allee 47, 89069 Ulm, Germany.
Sarah PaganiniDepartment of Sport Psychology, University of Freiburg, Schwarzwaldstraße 175, 79117 Freiburg, Germany.
Alexandra PortenhauserDepartment of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Institute of Psychology and Education, Ulm University, Lise-Meitner-Str. 16, 89081 Ulm, Germany.
Anna-Sophia EderDepartment of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Institute of Psychology and Education, Ulm University, Lise-Meitner-Str. 16, 89081 Ulm, Germany.
Melanie BauerDepartment of Clinical and Health Psychology, Institute of Psychology and Education, Ulm University, Albert-Einstein-Allee 47, 89069 Ulm, Germany.
Mike PapenhoffPain Medicine Clinic, BG Klinikum Duisburg, Grossenbaumer Allee 250, D-47249 Duisburg, Germany.
Harald BaumeisterDepartment of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Institute of Psychology and Education, Ulm University, Lise-Meitner-Str. 16, 89081 Ulm, Germany.
Lasse Bosse SanderDepartment of Rehabilitation Psychology and Psychotherapy, Institute of Psychology, Albert-Ludwigs-University Freiburg, Engelberger Str. 41, 79106 Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectivePain spans a broad spectrum of diseases and types that are highly prevalent and cause substantial disease burden for individuals and society. Up to 40% of people affected by pain receive no or inadequate treatment. Providing a scalable, time-, and location-independent way for pain diagnostic, management, prevention and treatment mobile health applications (MHA) might be a promising approach to improve health care for pain. However, the commercial app market is rapidly growing and unregulated, resulting in an opaque market. Studies investigating the content, privacy and security features, quality and scientific evidence of the available apps are highly needed, to guide patients and clinicians to high quality MHA.Contributing to this challenge, the present study investigates the content, quality, and privacy features of pain apps available in the European app stores.

methodsAn automated search engine was used to identify pain apps in the European Google Play and Apple App store. Pain apps were screened and checked for systematic criteria (pain-relatedness, functionality, availability, independent usability, English or German). Content, quality and privacy features were assessed by two independent reviewers using the German Mobile Application Rating Scale (MARS-G). The MARS-G assesses quality on four objectives (engagement, functionality, aesthetics, information quality) and two subjective scales (perceived impact, subjective quality).

resultsOut of 1034 identified pain apps 218 were included. Pain apps covered eight different pain types. Content included basic information, advice, assessment and tracking, and stand-alone interventions. The overall quality of the pain apps was average M = 3.13 (SD = 0.56, min = 1, max = 4.69). The effectiveness of less than 1% of the included pain apps was evaluated in a randomized controlled trial. Major problems with data privacy were present: 59% provided no imprint, 70% had no visible privacy policy.

conclusionA multitude of pain apps is available. Most MHA lack scientific evaluation and have serious privacy issues, posing a potential threat to users. Further research on evidence and improvements privacy and security are needed. Overall, the potential of pain apps is not exploited.

Indexed as

e-HealthMARSMobile health appsPain

Identifiers

PMID33718002
PMCPMC7933737

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.