ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2022
Evaluating and rating HIV/AIDS mobile apps using the feature-based application rating method and mobile app rating scale.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- 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
- Chronic pain and mobile health: Are the apps that occupational therapists recommend of high quality?Australian occupational therapy journal · 2026Article
- 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
- Expert evaluation of mobile health apps for breast cancer management: a feature-based analysis using the Mobile Application Rating Scale (MARS).BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Education and Symptom Reporting in an mHealth App for Patients With Cancer: Mixed Methods Development and Validation Study.JMIR human factors · 2025Article
- Development of a Mobile-Based Personal Health Record for Pediatric Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Management: Protocol for a Study Based on Action Research Design.JMIR research protocols · 2025Article
- Mobile applications available in Saudi Arabia for the management of Primary Dysmenorrhea: A quality review and content analysis.PloS one · 2025Article
- Evaluation of mobile applications related to patients with Parkinson's disease based on their essential features and capabilities.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2024Article
- Evaluating the Usability and Quality of a Clinical Mobile App for Assisting Physicians in Head Computed Tomography Scan Ordering: Mixed Methods Study.JMIR human factors · 2024Article
- The Most Popular Commercial Weight Management Apps in the Chinese App Store: Analysis of Quality, Features, and Behavior Change Techniques.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2023Article
- Interviews with HIV Experts for Development of a Mobile Health Application in HIV Care-A Qualitative Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe purpose of this study was to evaluate HIV/AIDS mobile applications using the Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS) and rate the features of these applications using the new tool called the Feature-based Application Rating Method (FARM).
methodsIn this study, all available HIV/AIDS apps in Iran from Cafe Bazaar and Google Play Store due to inclusion criteria were studied. The evaluation of the quality of applications was done using the MARS tool and the FARM tool. The FARM, which was developed in this study, was applied to rank the features of the applications.
resultsIn this study, 79 applications were included. The mean score of all apps using both tools was 3.58 (SD = 0.95) out of 5. The overall mean quality score based on the MARS was 3.14 (SD = 0.84), and the mean score of features based on FARM was 3.81 (SD = 1.23). This study showed a higher than moderate correlation between the scores assigned to apps based on the MARS and FARM tools (r > 0.4).
conclusionsThe HIV/AIDS mobile applications available in Iran had the "acceptable" ranking. Also, our study results showed that to evaluate mobile apps, using a single tool may not provide good insight to evaluators about the assessed apps. However, using more than one tool may provide more details about the evaluated apps. To improve the quality of mobile health apps and help users select the most desirable app, we suggested using tools like FARM for ranking apps based on the features of each app in the app stores.
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.