Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34442435›Full record

ArticleJournal of personalized medicine2021

Personalized and Self-Management: Systematic Search and Evaluation Quality Factors and User Preference of Drug Reference Apps in Taiwan.

Yu-Chun Chen, Wei-Wei Liao, Mei-Chin Su, Yen-Hsi Lin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of personalized medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
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

4 authors.

Yu-Chun ChenDepartment of Family Medicine, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei 112, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0002-4124-1949
Wei-Wei LiaoInstitute of Hospital and Health Care Administration, National Yang-Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei 112, Taiwan.
Mei-Chin SuDepartment of Nursing, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei 112, Taiwan.
Yen-Hsi LinSchool of Medicine, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei 112, Taiwan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDrug reference apps promote self-management and improve the efficiency and quality of work for physicians, nurses, pharmacists, and patients. This study aimed to describe a systematic and stepwise process to identify drug reference apps in Taiwan, assess the quality of these apps, and analyze the influential factors for user ratings.

methodsA two-step algorithm (KESS) consisting of keyword growing and systematic search was proposed. Seven independent reviewers were trained to evaluate these apps using Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS). A logistic regression model was fitted and average marginal effects (AME) were calculated to identify the effects of factors for higher user ratings.

resultsA total of 23 drug reference apps in Taiwan were identified and analyzed. Generally, these drug reference apps were evaluated as acceptable quality with an average MARS score of 3.23. Higher user engagement, more functionality, better aesthetics, and more information associated with higher user ratings. Navigation is the most influential factor on higher user ratings (AME: 13.15%) followed by performance (AME: 11.03%), visual appeal (AME: 10.87%), credibility (AME: 10.67%), and quantity of information (AME: 10.42%).

conclusionsUser experience and information clearly affect user ratings of drug reference apps. Five key factors should be considered when designing drug reference apps.

Indexed as

drug reference appkeyword growing and systematic searchMobile App Rating Scale

Identifiers

PMID34442435
PMCPMC8400514

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.