ArticleObstetrics & gynecology science2022
Evaluation of mobile health applications for cervical cancer in the digital marketplace.
Article in Obstetrics & gynecology science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A Systematic Review of Cervical Cancer Mobile Applications and a Future Directions for Developers.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2024Pooled it
- Developing and validating a content quality evaluation tool for cancer mobile applications.BMC cancer · 2024Article
- mhealth-based interventions to improving liver cancer screening among high-risk populations: a study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.BMC public health · 2024Article
- Living lab modelling as a pilot study assessing the potential psychological health benefits of forest environment for cancer survivors.Obstetrics & gynecology science · 2024Article
- Quality Assessment of Smartphone Medication Management Apps in France: Systematic Search.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2024Article
- Diagnostic accuracy of hand-held colposcope (Gynocular) in comparison with standard colposcope in patients with abnormal cervical cytology or visual inspection with acetic acid positivity: a cross over randomized controlled study.Obstetrics & gynecology science · 2023Article
- Exploring usability problems of mHealth applications developed for cervical cancer: An empirical study.SAGE open medicine · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the quality of mobile health (mHealth) applications (apps) for cervical cancer using the mobile app rating scale (MARS), APPLICATIONS scoring system, and app rating using specific statements.
methodsWe searched for cervical cancer apps on two major mobile operating systems (Google Play Store and Apple iTunes Store) in March 2021. Eligible apps were downloaded and assessed for quality by two independent reviewers using multimodal assessment tools.
resultsThe overall quality of the MARS score was 2.61±0.795. The highest scoring app was "The American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology (ASCCP) Management Guidelines" (3.98). Overall, apps scored highest in the functionality domain, followed by information, engagement, and aesthetics domains. The mean±standard deviation of the APPLICATIONS scoring system was 8.50±1.712. The highest-rated apps were "ASCCP Management Guidelines," "The British Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology (BSCCP)," and "Cervical Cancer Guide." Apps scored the highest in the paid subscription and price domains. By contrast, apps scored poorly in the text search, literature, and subjective presentation domains. Concerning app content, many apps infrequently provided misconceptions regarding cervical cancer. The apps' rating using specific statements was 7.81±4.562.
conclusionOverall, the apps analyzed using the MARS and APPLICATIONS scoring systems demonstrated above-average quality. However, there is a need to improve the essential information conveyed by these applications. Moreover, the assessment tools have influenced different app quality rating results, confirming the lack of standardized quality assessment tools for 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.