ArticleTurkish journal of urology2022
Turkish Validation of the User Version of the Mobile Application Rating Scale.
Article in Turkish journal of urology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 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
- French Version of the User Mobile Application Rating Scale: Adaptation and Validation Study.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 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
8 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveAs the number of mobile health applications increases, quality assessment becomes a capital feature of any mobile application design. Besides the professional evaluation conducted before marketing the app, the perceptions of the subjects to whom is intended will determine the successful widespread dis- semination. Hence, the implementation of a given app may be impaired by the lack of a validated transla- tion and cross-cultural adaptation. We aimed to validate in the Turkish language the User Version of the Mobile Application Rating Scale, an English original scale designed to assess the quality of mobile health applications. MATERIALS AND
methodsA well-established and predefined process of cross-cultural adaptation and transla- tion to Turkish of the User Version of the Mobile Application Rating Scale according to the World Health Organization guidelines was performed using a common, readily available, free-of-charge application. Internal consistency and reliability were tested in a population sample by Cronbach's α and rWG index, respectively.
resultsThe total User Version of the Mobile Application Rating Scale score had good internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.87). Internal consistencies of its subscales were also acceptable: with Cronbach's α of 0.71, 0.78, 0.71, and 0.73 for engagement, functionality, aesthetics, and information, respectively. Cronbach's α of the satisfaction subscale was 0.46. The User Version of the Mobile Application Rating Scale total and sub- scales scores had a strong within-group agreement, all of them with rwg indexes between 0.78 and 0.87 over baseline to 1 month.
conclusionThe Turkish version of the User Version of the Mobile Application Rating Scale is consistent with the English original version and is a reliable and valid tool to assess the quality of mobile applications by Turkish users.
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.