ArticleJAMIA open2022
Apps for Covid-19 in Germany: assessment using the German Mobile App Rating Scale.
Article in JAMIA open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Translation and Validation of the User Version of the Mobile Application Rating Scale Into the Polish Language: Cross-Sectional Methodological Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Digital Survey-Based Tracing of COVID-19 Over the Early Pandemic: Comprehensive Geospatial and Symptomatic Analysis in Lebanon.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2025Article
- The impact of climate change on vulnerable populations in pediatrics: opportunities for AI, digital health, and beyond-a scoping review and selected case studies.Pediatric research · 2025Article
- Mobile Apps for COVID-19: A Systematic Review of Reviews.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- 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
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The purpose of this study is to provide an overview of apps to help control the spread of Covid-19 in Germany and rate them according to standardized instruments. Materials and methods: The Apple App Store and Google Play Store were systematically searched to identify apps dealing with Covid-19 in Germany. The German Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS-G) was used to independently assess app quality by 2 trained reviewers. Results: Overall, the quality of the 6 rated apps was good with a mean score of 4.15 (3.88-4.34). The best-rated apps were NINA app (4.34) and Corona Health App (4.29). The best-rated sections were functionality (4.40), aesthetic (4.25), and information (4.25). In contrast, the worst-rated section was engagement (3.63). Even though some of the apps were used by more people than others, there was no correlation between the MARS-G rating and app store rating. In addition, the MARS-G proved to be effective even with rating apps, which have different goals and methods to achieve them. Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first study that identified and evaluated German Covid-19 mobile health apps available in the German app stores. The review shows that despite the excellent quality in aspects like information and functionality, there is still a gap in the engagement section. To motivate more people to use the Covid-19 apps, new ideas are needed, besides more information and education about the functionality of the apps, to gain trust in app developers and raise the number of downloads.
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.