Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34338763›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2021

Analyzing security issues of android mobile health and medical applications.

Gioacchino Tangari, Muhammad Ikram, I Wayan Budi Sentana, Kiran Ijaz, Mohamed Ali Kaafar, Shlomo Berkovsky

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Current challenges for evaluating mobile health applications.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2023
    Article
  6. Proposal of a New Rating Concept for Digital Health Applications in Orthopedics and Traumatology.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Gioacchino TangariDepartment of Computing, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6282-5994
Muhammad IkramDepartment of Computing, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.
I Wayan Budi SentanaDepartment of Computing, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.
Kiran IjazCentre for Health Informatics, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie.ORCID 0000-0001-8722-6595
Mohamed Ali KaafarDepartment of Computing, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.
Shlomo BerkovskyCentre for Health Informatics, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie.
Macquarie University · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveWe conduct a first large-scale analysis of mobile health (mHealth) apps available on Google Play with the goal of providing a comprehensive view of mHealth apps' security features and gauging the associated risks for mHealth users and their data. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe designed an app collection platform that discovered and downloaded more than 20 000 mHealth apps from the Medical and Health & Fitness categories on Google Play. We performed a suite of app code and traffic measurements to highlight a range of app security flaws: certificate security, sensitive or unnecessary permission requests, malware presence, communication security, and security-related concerns raised in user reviews.

resultsCompared to baseline non-mHealth apps, mHealth apps generally adopt more reliable signing mechanisms and request fewer dangerous permissions. However, significant fractions of mHealth apps expose users to serious security risks. Specifically, 1.8% of mHealth apps package suspicious codes (eg, trojans), 45.0% rely on unencrypted communication, and as much as 23.0% of personal data (eg, location information and passwords) is sent on unsecured traffic. An analysis of the app reviews reveals that mHealth app users are largely unaware of the surfaced security issues.

conclusionDespite being better aligned with security best practices than non-mHealth apps, mHealth apps are still far from ensuring robust security guarantees. App users, clinicians, technology developers, and policy makers alike should be cognizant of the uncovered security issues and weigh them carefully against the benefits of mHealth apps.

Indexed as

Mobile ApplicationsTelemedicineAdministrative PersonnelCommunicationExerciseHumansdynamic analysis, security, mobile malwaremobile health and medical applicationstatic analysis

Identifiers

PMID34338763
PMCPMC8449631
OpenAlexW3188843181

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.