Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35171109›Full record

ReviewJMIR mHealth and uHealth2022

Mobile Apps for Hematological Conditions: Review and Content Analysis Using the Mobile App Rating Scale.

Álvaro Narrillos-Moraza, Patricia Gómez-Martínez-Sagrera, Miguel Ángel Amor-García, Vicente Escudero-Vilaplana, Roberto Collado-Borrell, Cristina Villanueva-Bueno, Ignacio Gómez-Centurión, Ana Herranz-Alonso, María Sanjurjo-Sáez

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.8field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. 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

9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Álvaro Narrillos-Moraza *Servicio de Farmacia, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-6366-5339
Patricia Gómez-Martínez-Sagrera *Servicio de Farmacia, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-9285-342X
Miguel Ángel Amor-GarcíaServicio de Farmacia, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-0752-9746
Vicente Escudero-VilaplanaServicio de Farmacia, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-4417-8321
Roberto Collado-BorrellServicio de Farmacia, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-7639-0082
Cristina Villanueva-BuenoServicio de Farmacia, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-4870-1629
Ignacio Gómez-CenturiónServicio de Hematología, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-8428-700X
Ana Herranz-AlonsoServicio de Farmacia, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-5517-0248
María Sanjurjo-SáezServicio de Farmacia, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-8523-3721
Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHematological conditions are prevalent disorders that are associated with significant comorbidities and have a major impact on patient care. Concerning new tools for the care of these patients, the number of health apps aimed at hematological patients is growing. Currently, there are no quality analyses or classifications of apps for patients diagnosed with hematological conditions.

objectiveThe aim of this study is to analyze the characteristics and quality of apps designed for patients diagnosed with hematological conditions by using the Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS).

methodsWe performed an observational, cross-sectional descriptive study of all smartphone apps for patients diagnosed with hematological conditions. A search was conducted in March 2021 using the following terms: anemia, blood cancer, blood disorder, hematological cancer, hematological malignancy, hematological tumor, hematology, hemophilia, hemorrhage, lymphoma, leukemia, multiple myeloma, thalassemia, thrombocytopenia, and thrombosis. The apps identified were downloaded and evaluated by 2 independent researchers. General characteristics were registered, and quality was analyzed using MARS scores. Interrater reliability was measured by using the Cohen κ coefficient.

resultsWe identified 2100 apps in the initial search, and 4.19% (88/2100) of apps met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed. Of the 88 apps, 61% (54/88) were available on Android, 30% (26/88) were available on iOS, and 9% (8/88) were available on both platforms. Moreover, 7% (6/88) required payment, and 49% (43/88) were updated in the last year. Only 26% (23/88) of the apps were developed with the participation of health professionals. Most apps were informative (60/88, 68%), followed by preventive (23/88, 26%) and diagnostic (5/88, 6%). Most of the apps were intended for patients with anemia (23/88, 26%). The mean MARS score for the overall quality of the 88 apps was 3.03 (SD 1.14), ranging from 1.19 (lowest-rated app) to 4.86 (highest-rated app). Only 47% (41/88) of the apps obtained a MARS score of over 3 points (acceptable quality). Functionality was the best-rated section, followed by aesthetics, engagement, information, and app subjective quality. The five apps with the highest MARS score were the following: Multiple Myeloma Manager, Hodgkin Lymphoma Manager, Focus On Lymphoma, ALL Manager, and CLL Manager. The analysis by operating system, developer, and cost revealed statistically significant differences in MARS scores (P<.001, P<.001, and P=.049, respectively). The interrater agreement between the 2 reviewers was substantial (k=0.78).

conclusionsThere is great heterogeneity in the quality of apps for patients with hematological conditions. More than half of the apps do not meet acceptable criteria for quality and content. Most of them only provide information about the pathology, lacking interactivity and personalization options. The participation of health professionals in the development of these apps is low, although it is narrowly related to better quality.

Indexed as

Mobile ApplicationsCross-Sectional StudiesHealth PersonnelHumansReproducibility of ResultsbloodhematologymHealthmobile appsmobile phonequalityrating tool

Identifiers

PMID35171109
PMCPMC8892317
OpenAlexW4200014578

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.