ArticleInternet interventions2021
Systematic evaluation of content and quality of English and German pain apps in European app stores.
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.
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
24 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Commercially available mobile health applications for obesity across the lifespan: a systematic search and quality assessment.International journal of obesity (2005) · 2026Pooled it
- 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 · 2025Pooled it
- Patient-targeted smartphone applications for pain management: A review of brazilian app markets.Brazilian journal of physical therapyPooled it
- Effects of a video intervention on physicians' acceptance of pain apps: a randomised controlled trial.BMJ open · 2022Trial
- Chronic pain and mobile health: Are the apps that occupational therapists recommend of high quality?Australian occupational therapy journal · 2026Article
- Cluster-Based Predictive Modeling of User Ratings for Physical Activity Apps Using Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS) Dimensions: Model Development and Validation.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2025Article
- Mobile Health App for Adults with Persisting Postconcussion Symptoms: Development and Usability Study.JMIR human factors · 2025Article
- Eliciting Preferences for the Uptake of Smoking Cessation Apps: Discrete Choice Experiment.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Strategies to optimise the health equity impact of digital pain self-reporting tools: a series of multi-stakeholder focus groups.International journal for equity in health · 2024Article
- Innovative Applications of Telemedicine and Other Digital Health Solutions in Pain Management: A Literature Review.Pain and therapy · 2024Review
- Digital Apps to Improve Mobility in Adults with Neurological Conditions: A Health App-Focused Systematic Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Quality assessment of mHealth apps: a scoping review.Frontiers in health services · 2024Article
- Stress Management Apps: Systematic Search and Multidimensional Assessment of Quality and Characteristics.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2023Review
- Problems and Barriers Related to the Use of Digital Health Applications: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Article
- Needs and Demands for eHealth Pain Management Interventions in Chronic Pain Patients.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
- Digital health in pain assessment, diagnosis, and management: Overview and perspectives.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- A systematic quality rating of available mobile health apps for borderline personality disorder.Borderline personality disorder and emotion dysregulation · 2022Article
- Review and Analysis of German Mobile Apps for Inflammatory Bowel Disease Management Using the Mobile Application Rating Scale: Systematic Search in App Stores and Content Analysis.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2022Article
- Special issue on digital health interventions in chronic medical conditions: Editorial.Internet interventions · 2022Article
- Standardized evaluation of the quality and persuasiveness of mobile health applications for diabetes management.Scientific reports · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.