ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2021
Evaluation of mobile applications for patients with fecal incontinence using a modified APPLICATIONS scoring system.
Article in International urogynecology journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Usability evaluation of the Computer-Based Health Evaluation System (CHES) eDiary for patients with faecal incontinence: a pilot study.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2022Article
- Patient-Centered Goals for Treatment of Pelvic Floor Disorders.Current bladder dysfunction reports · 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
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introduction and hypothesisMobile applications (apps) are becoming an increasingly popular means of obtaining medical information. The aim of our study was to identify and evaluate patient-centered fecal incontinence (FI) mobile apps using a modified APPLICATIONS scoring system.
methodsWe conducted searches in the Apple App and Google Play stores to identify FI-related mobile apps using search terms reflecting both commonly accepted medical terms as well as colloquial terms used by our patients with FI. Apps that were in English, relevant to FI, patient-centered, and medically accurate were included. Each eligible app was then independently evaluated by the three authors using a modified 17-point APPLICATIONS scoring system.
resultsWe identified 2785 apps upon initial search using FI search terms. Fourteen apps met eligibility criteria for scoring. Most apps were bowel movement trackers (13/14, 93%), of which only three allowed for tracking of FI episodes. Only one (7%) app contained educational information specific to FI. Ten (71%) apps were fully functional at no cost. Thirteen (93%) apps cited literature. Median APPLICATIONS score was 10 (IQR 9-11). "BristolStoolChart," "FreeToBe," and "PoopLog" each received the highest total score of 13.
conclusionsPatient-centered mobile apps that provide FI-specific educational information or allow for FI symptom tracking are scarce. While we did discover some accurate sources of information and means of tracking bowel habits, patients are likely to encounter inaccurate or irrelevant information even when searching for FI-related apps using appropriate terminology. Future app development should include FI-specific symptom tracking and educational information from reputable sources.
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.