ArticleFrontiers in digital health2022
Evidence of User-Expert Gaps in Health App Ratings and Implications for Practice.
Article in Frontiers in digital health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Scope, Characteristics, Behavior Change Techniques, and Quality of Conversational Agents for Mental Health and Well-Being: Systematic Assessment of Apps.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Pooled it
- The Role of Rating Valence in AI Skin Cancer App Acceptance: Eye-Tracking and Questionnaire Study.JMIR human factors · 2026Article
- Trust and Use of Recommendations for Health Apps Among European Residents: Cross-Sectional Survey.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2026Observational
- Family Caregiver Support Apps: Questionable Evidence, Content, Security and Unmet Needs.Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2025Article
- Mental Health Apps Available in App Stores for Indian Users: Protocol for a Systematic Review.JMIR research protocols · 2025Article
- Don't judge a book or health app by its cover: User ratings and downloads are not linked to quality.PloS one · 2024Article
- Proposal of a New Rating Concept for Digital Health Applications in Orthopedics and Traumatology.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Evaluation of Oral Hygiene-Related Mobile Apps for Children in Sub-Saharan Africa.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Oral-Hygiene-Related Mobile Apps in the French App Stores: Assessment of Functionality and Quality.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Searching the commercial Google Play Store and App Store is one of the most common strategies for discovering mobile applications for digital health, both among consumers and healthcare professionals. However, several studies have suggested a possible mismatch between this strategy and the objective of finding apps in physical and mental health that are both clinically relevant and reliable from a privacy standpoint. This study provides direct evidence of a gap between the five-star user rating system and expert ratings from a curated library of over 1,200 apps that cover both physical and mental health. An objective metric is derived to assess the strength of the user-expert gap for each app, which in turn allows identifying missed opportunities-low user ratings and high expert ratings-and overrated apps-high user ratings and low expert ratings. Implications for practice and care delivery are discussed.
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.