ReviewJMIR mHealth and uHealth2022
Mobile Apps for Hematological Conditions: Review and Content Analysis Using the Mobile App Rating Scale.
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.
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
19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of fatty liver disease self-care applications: a systematic review and evaluation of apps using the mobile application rating scale (MARS).BMC gastroenterology · 2026Pooled it
- Evaluating the Quality and Features of Visual Acuity Apps Using the Mobile App Rating Scale: Systematic Review.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2025Pooled it
- Integration of cognitive behavioral therapy and mobile health applications among university students with depression: a qualitative study.International journal of qualitative studies on health and well-being · 2026Article
- Content Analysis of Human Anatomy Mobile Apps for Undergraduate Student Learning using MARuL.Medical science educator · 2026Article
- Mobile Apps for Oncology Health Care Professionals: Mapping and Assessment Study.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2026Article
- Cognitive Training Mobile Apps for Older Adults With Cognitive Impairment: App Store Search and Quality Evaluation.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2025Article
- Quality and Privacy Policy Compliance of Mental Health Care Apps in China: Cross-Sectional Evaluation Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- A scoping review of the reporting quality of reviews of commercially and publicly available mobile health apps.JAMIA open · 2025Review
- Patient Preference and Mobile Application Use in Hemophilia A: A Cross-Sectional Survey from Eastern Europe.Journal of patient experience · 2025Article
- Developing and validating a content quality evaluation tool for cancer mobile applications.BMC cancer · 2024Article
- Assessment of Eye Care Apps for Children and Adolescents Based on the Mobile App Rating Scale: Content Analysis and Quality Assessment.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2024Article
- Use of Patient-Centered Technology and Digital Interventions in Pediatric and Adult Patients with Hematologic Malignancies.Current hematologic malignancy reports · 2024Review
- Quality Assessment of Smartphone Medication Management Apps in France: Systematic Search.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2024Article
- Iowa Newborn Screening Program Experience with Hemoglobinopathy Screening over the Last Two Decades and Its Increasing Global Relevance.International journal of neonatal screening · 2024Article
- Assessing the Usefulness of Mobile Apps for Noise Management in Occupational Health and Safety: Quantitative Measurement and Expert Elicitation Study.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2023Article
- Mobile applications for cognitive training: Content analysis and quality review.Internet interventions · 2023Article
- Menstrual Tracking Mobile App Review by Consumers and Health Care Providers: Quality Evaluations Study.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2023Review
- Mobile applications in the Philippines during the COVID-19 pandemic: systematic search, use case mapping, and quality assessment using the Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS).BMC digital health · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.