ReviewThe Laryngoscope2023
Are Mobile Applications in Laryngology Designed for All Patients?
Review in The Laryngoscope, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Gender-Affirming Voice Training Delivered by a Novel Mobile App: Mixed Methods Study.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2026Article
- Article
- Mobile Health Apps for Breast Cancer: Content Analysis and Quality Assessment.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesMobile applications (apps) are multiplying in laryngology, with little standardization of content, functionality, or accessibility. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the quality, functionality, health literacy, readability, accessibility, and inclusivity of laryngology mobile applications.
methodsOf the 3230 apps identified from the Apple and Google Play stores, 28 patient-facing apps met inclusion criteria. Apps were evaluated using validated scales assessing quality and functionality: the Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS) and the Institute for Healthcare Informatics App Functionality Scale. The Clear Communication Index (CDC) Institute of Medicine Strategies for Creating Health Literate Mobile Applications, and Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT) were used to evaluate apps health literacy level. Readability was assessed using established readability formulas. Apps were evaluated for language, accessibility features, and representation of a diverse population.
resultsTwenty-six apps (92%) had adequate quality (MARS score > 3). The mean PEMAT score was 89% for actionability and 86% for understandability. On average, apps utilized 25/33 health literate strategies. Twenty-two apps (79%) did not pass the CDC index threshold of 90% for health literacy. Twenty-four app descriptions (86%) were above an 8
conclusionWhile most apps scored well in quality and functionality, many laryngology apps did not meet standards for health literacy. Most apps were written at a reading level above the national average, lacked accessibility features, and did not represent diverse populations. Laryngoscope, 133:1540-1549, 2023.
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.