ArticleFrontiers in sports and active living2022
App development in a sports science setting: A systematic review and lessons learned from an exemplary setting to generate recommendations for the app development process.
Article in Frontiers in sports and active living, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The digital health sector is rapidly growing. With only 4% of publishers out of academic settings, it is under-represented in app development. The objective of this study is to assess the current state of app development with a systematic review and a survey within an exemplary academic setting along the following research questions: (Q1) Are software engineering principles sufficiently known in the sports science app development context? (Q2) Is the role of sports scientists in the context of app development sufficiently understood? The systematic review was conducted by two independent reviewers within databases Pubmed, Scopus, Web of Science, and IEEE Xplore. The PICO schema was used to identify the search term. We subtracted information about five main topics: development process, functional requirements and features, security, technology, and dissemination. The survey was developed by a multidisciplinary team and focused on five main topics. Out of 701 matches, 21 were included in the review. The development process was only described in seven studies. Functional requirements and features were considered in 11 studies, security in 3, technology in 13, and dissemination in 12 with varying details. Twelve respondents [mean age 33(7) years, 58% women] replied to the survey. The survey revealed limited knowledge in realization of security measures, underlying technology and source code management, and dissemination. Respondents were able to provide input on development processes as well as functional requirements and features. The involvement of domain experts is given in seven review studies and described in two more. In 50% of survey respondents, the role in app development is defined as a research assistant. We conclude that there is a varying degree of software engineering knowledge in the sports science app development context (Q1). Furthermore, we found that the role of sports scientists within app development is not sufficiently defined (Q2). We present recommendations for improving the success probability and sustainability of app development and give orientation on the potential roles of sports scientists as domain experts. Future research should focus on the generalizability of these findings and the reporting of the app development process.
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.