SynthesisJMIR mHealth and uHealth2021
Tools for Evaluating the Content, Efficacy, and Usability of Mobile Health Apps According to the Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments: Systematic Review.
Synthesis in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
44 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 86 citations in OpenAlex.
- A systematic review of the prevalence of fatigue in common mental disorders (mood disorders, anxiety disorders, personality disorders, and trauma and stressor related disorders).BMC psychiatry · 2026Pooled it
- Adherence to Usability and Accessibility Principles in Digital Health Applications for Patients With Diabetes: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Pooled it
- Effectiveness of eHealth for Medication Adherence in Renal Transplant Recipients: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Pooled it
- Quality Assessment of Digital Health Apps: Umbrella Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Pooled it
- Usability Assessment Methods for Mobile Apps for Physical Rehabilitation: Umbrella Review.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2024Pooled it
- A Systematic Review of Cervical Cancer Mobile Applications and a Future Directions for Developers.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2024Pooled it
- Japanese Health Information Technology Usability Evaluation Scale for Sexually Transmitted Infection-Related Chatbots: Development and Psychometric Validation Study.JMIR human factors · 2026Article
- Systematic and Collaborative Approach to Learning and Educational Content Development (SCALED) for Health Apps: An Experience-Informed Conceptual Framework.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2026Article
- The effect of an automated patient engagement solutions (APES) on step-by-step parental communication around time of discharge and length of stay.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2026Article
- Validation of the Dental Age app for automated dental age estimation using Demirjian's method.Frontiers in dental medicine · 2026Article
- Designing an App to Facilitate Self-Management in Young Adult Survivors of Childhood Cancer: Development and Usability Study.JMIR cancer · 2025Article
- Symptom tracking for endometriosis: a systematic review protocol for mobile applications focused on content, inclusivity and features.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Smartphone Apps and Wearables for Health Parameters in Young Adulthood: Cross-Sectional Study.JMIR human factors · 2025Article
- Implementation and User Satisfaction Analysis of an Electronic Medication Reconciliation Tool (ConciliaMed) in Patients Undergoing Elective Colorectal Surgery.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Article
- Quality Evaluating Mobile Health Apps for Oral Hygiene Management Using the Mobile Application Rating Scale (MARS): A Systematic Review of Smartphone App Markets.Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran · 2025Review
- Acceptability of interactive post-endodontic restoration decision making application among undergraduate dental students.Journal of dental sciences · 2024Article
- Concordance of data collected by an app for medical history taking and in-person interviews from patients in primary care.JAMIA open · 2024Article
- Validation of a Questionnaire to Assess the Usability of and User Experience with Mobile Health Applications.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Evaluation of the Usability and User Experience of the Jaminan Kesehatan Nasional Mobile Application in Indonesia.Healthcare informatics research · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere are several mobile health (mHealth) apps in mobile app stores. These apps enter the business-to-customer market with limited controls. Both, apps that users use autonomously and those designed to be recommended by practitioners require an end-user validation to minimize the risk of using apps that are ineffective or harmful. Prior studies have reviewed the most relevant aspects in a tool designed for assessing mHealth app quality, and different options have been developed for this purpose. However, the psychometric properties of the mHealth quality measurement tools, that is, the validity and reliability of the tools for their purpose, also need to be studied. The Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) initiative has developed tools for selecting the most suitable measurement instrument for health outcomes, and one of the main fields of study was their psychometric properties.
objectiveThis study aims to address and psychometrically analyze, following the COSMIN guideline, the quality of the tools that are used to measure the quality of mHealth apps.
methodsFrom February 1, 2019, to December 31, 2019, 2 reviewers searched PubMed and Embase databases, identifying mHealth app quality measurement tools and all the validation studies associated with each of them. For inclusion, the studies had to be meant to validate a tool designed to assess mHealth apps. Studies that used these tools for the assessment of mHealth apps but did not include any psychometric validation were excluded. The measurement tools were analyzed according to the 10 psychometric properties described in the COSMIN guideline. The dimensions and items analyzed in each tool were also analyzed.
resultsThe initial search showed 3372 articles. Only 10 finally met the inclusion criteria and were chosen for analysis in this review, analyzing 8 measurement tools. Of these tools, 4 validated ≥5 psychometric properties defined in the COSMIN guideline. Although some of the tools only measure the usability dimension, other tools provide information such as engagement, esthetics, or functionality. Furthermore, 2 measurement tools, Mobile App Rating Scale and mHealth Apps Usability Questionnaire, have a user version, as well as a professional version.
conclusionsThe Health Information Technology Usability Evaluation Scale and the Measurement Scales for Perceived Usefulness and Perceived Ease of Use were the most validated tools, but they were very focused on usability. The Mobile App Rating Scale showed a moderate number of validated psychometric properties, measures a significant number of quality dimensions, and has been validated in a large number of mHealth apps, and its use is widespread. It is suggested that the continuation of the validation of this tool in other psychometric properties could provide an appropriate option for evaluating the quality of mHealth apps.
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.