SynthesisJMIR mHealth and uHealth2021
Measuring the Quality of Clinical Skills Mobile Apps for Student Learning: Systematic Search, Analysis, and Comparison of Two Measurement Scales.
Synthesis in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Content Analysis of Human Anatomy Mobile Apps for Undergraduate Student Learning using MARuL.Medical science educator · 2026Article
- Evaluation of medical education mobile apps with MARS and MARuL in a TPACK informed model.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Article
- Evaluation of Mobile Apps Used among Medical Students for Learning and Education: A Mixed-Method Concurrent Triangulation Approach.Applied clinical informatics · 2024Article
- Development of customized inner beauty products and customized cosmetics apps according to the use of NRF2 through DTC genetic testing after the COVID-19 pandemic.Journal of cosmetic dermatology · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMobile apps are widely used in health professions, which increases the need for simple methods to determine the quality of apps. In particular, teachers need the ability to curate high-quality mobile apps for student learning.
objectiveThis study aims to systematically search for and evaluate the quality of clinical skills mobile apps as learning tools. The quality of apps meeting the specified criteria was evaluated using two measures-the widely used Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS), which measures general app quality, and the Mobile App Rubric for Learning (MARuL), a recently developed instrument that measures the value of apps for student learning-to assess whether MARuL is more effective than MARS in identifying high-quality apps for learning.
methodsTwo mobile app stores were systematically searched using clinical skills terms commonly found in medical education and apps meeting the criteria identified using an approach based on PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. A total of 9 apps were identified during the screening process. The apps were rated independently by 2 reviewers using MARS and MARuL.
resultsThe intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for the 2 raters using MARS and MARuL were the same (MARS ICC [two-way]=0.68; P<.001 and MARuL ICC [two-way]=0.68; P<.001). Of the 9 apps, Geeky Medics-OSCE revision (MARS Android=3.74; MARS iOS=3.68; MARuL Android=75; and MARuL iOS=73) and OSCE PASS: Medical Revision (MARS Android=3.79; MARS iOS=3.71; MARuL Android=69; and MARuL iOS=73) scored highly on both measures of app quality and for both Android and iOS. Both measures also showed agreement for the lowest rated app, Patient Education Institute (MARS Android=2.21; MARS iOS=2.11; MARuL Android=18; and MARuL iOS=21.5), which had the lowest scores in all categories except information (MARS) and professional (MARuL) in both operating systems. MARS and MARuL were both able to differentiate between the highest and lowest quality apps; however, MARuL was better able to differentiate apps based on teaching and learning quality.
conclusionsThis systematic search and rating of clinical skills apps for learning found that the quality of apps was highly variable. However, 2 apps-Geeky Medics-OSCE revision and OSCE PASS: Medical Revision-rated highly for both versions and with both quality measures. MARS and MARuL showed similar abilities to differentiate the quality of the 9 apps. However, MARuL's incorporation of teaching and learning elements as part of a multidimensional measure of quality may make it more appropriate for use with apps focused on teaching and learning, whereas MARS's more general rating of quality may be more appropriate for health apps targeting a general health audience. Ratings of the 9 apps by both measures also highlighted the variable quality of clinical skills mobile apps for learning.
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.