ArticlemHealth2021
A systematic review of smartphone apps for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease: the need for regulation and medical professional involvement.
Article in mHealth, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Responsible AI Readiness Framework for Digital Self-Management Platforms: Illustrative Application to a Rule-Based GERD Platform.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Article
- A Systematic Assessment of the Quality of Smartphone Applications for Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease.Gastro hep advances · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundExpansion in smartphone use and mobile health (mHealth) apps has generated a large and unregulated sector. Gastro-oesophageal Reflux Disease (GORD) is a widely prevalent disease in the UK. The aim of this study is to evaluate the smartphone apps focused on GORD, available on major digital platforms, with particular emphasis on their recorded evidence base (EB) and the extent of medical professional involvement (MPI) in their constitution.
methodsRelevant apps were extracted using defined search terms and inclusion (using a wide array of search terms) and exclusion criteria (non-English language, duplicates) were applied. Data was collected from the overview provided by the developer in the app store and from the developer website for each app, and classified according to various variables. EB and professional involvement data was obtained from the application details provided in the app stores as well as information section of individual apps.
resultsA vast majority of the apps (97.3%) were developed targeting the general public. Of the 73 apps, 11 (15.1%) had a documented EB. Two apps stated if healthcare professionals were involved in the development, screening or assessment of the app content, meaning only 2.73% of the apps (2/73) stated their content had been contributed by medical professionals (individual, group or organisation of health providers). Thirty-four apps had recent updates in 2019 (47%, 34/73).
conclusionsRegulation and accreditation of mHealth apps related to GORD are needed.
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.