Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34735603›Full record

SynthesisJournal of medical systems2021

A Review of Mortality Risk Prediction Models in Smartphone Applications.

Nino Fijačko, Ruth Masterson Creber, Lucija Gosak, Primož Kocbek, Leona Cilar, Peter Creber, Gregor Štiglic

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of medical systems, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Evaluation of the effectiveness of the FOCUS ADHD App in monitoring adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.European psychiatry : the journal of the Association of European Psychiatrists · 2023
    Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. 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

7 authors.

Nino FijačkoFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Maribor, Zitna 15, Maribor, Slovenia. nino.fijacko@um.si.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2722-0049
Ruth Masterson CreberDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Division of Health Informatics, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Lucija GosakFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Maribor, Maribor, Slovenia.
Primož KocbekFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Maribor, Maribor, Slovenia.
Leona CilarFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Maribor, Maribor, Slovenia.
Peter CreberDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, North Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol, UK.
Gregor ŠtiglicFaculty of Health Sciences and Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of Maribor, Maribor, Slovenia.

Funding

Should we return patient reported outcomes to human subjects participants?-exploring ethical obligationsR00NR016275 · NINR · WEILL MEDICAL COLL OF CORNELL UNIV · PI MASTERSON CREBER, RUTH MARIE · 2018 to 2020
$896k
Erasmus+ 2019-1-ES01-KA203-065836Javna Agencija za Raziskovalno Dejavnost RS N2-0101Javna Agencija za Raziskovalno Dejavnost RS (SI) P2-0057National Institute of Nursing Research (US) R00NR016275NINR NIH HHS R00 NR016275
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Healthcare professionals in healthcare systems need access to freely available, real-time, evidence-based mortality risk prediction smartphone applications to facilitate resource allocation. The objective of this study is to evaluate the quality of smartphone mobile health applications that include mortality prediction models, and corresponding information quality. We conducted a systematic review of commercially available smartphone applications in Google Play for Android, and iTunes for iOS smartphone applications. We performed initial screening, data extraction, and rated smartphone application quality using the Mobile Application Rating Scale: user version (uMARS). The information quality of smartphone applications was evaluated using two patient vignettes, representing low and high risk of mortality, based on critical care data from the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care (MIMIC) III database. Out of 3051 evaluated smartphone applications, 33 met our final inclusion criteria. We identified 21 discrete mortality risk prediction models in smartphone applications. The most common mortality predicting models were Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) (n = 15) and Acute Physiology and Clinical Health Assessment II (n = 13). The smartphone applications with the highest quality uMARS scores were Observation-NEWS 2 (4.64) for iOS smartphones, and MDCalc Medical Calculator (4.75) for Android smartphones. All SOFA-based smartphone applications provided consistent information quality with the original SOFA model for both the low and high-risk patient vignettes. We identified freely available, high-quality mortality risk prediction smartphone applications that can be used by healthcare professionals to make evidence-based decisions in critical care environments.

Indexed as

Mobile ApplicationsTelemedicineDelivery of Health CareHealth PersonnelHumansSmartphoneHospital mortalityIntensive care unitsMobile applicationsSeverity of illness index

Identifiers

PMID34735603
PMCPMC8566656

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.