ArticleCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.)2023
An Evaluation of Interactive mHealth Applications for Adults Living with Cancer.
Article in Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Education and Symptom Reporting in an mHealth App for Patients With Cancer: Mixed Methods Development and Validation Study.JMIR human factors · 2025Article
- Reviewing Mobile Apps for Teaching Human Anatomy: Search and Quality Evaluation Study.JMIR medical education · 2025Article
- Empowering patients for biomarker-informed care: digital education to bridge HER2-low knowledge gaps in metastatic breast cancer.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Article
- Mobile applications offering non-pharmacological therapies aimed at improving the quality of life of cancer patients: a scoping review.Revista brasileira de enfermagem · 2025Article
- Co-Designing the MOSAIC mHealth App With Breast Cancer Survivors: User-Centered Design Approach.JMIR formative research · 2024Article
- mHealth Apps in the Digital Marketplace for Pediatric Patients With Cancer: Systematic Search and Analysis.JMIR pediatrics and parenting · 2024Article
- Digital Therapeutics for Improving Effectiveness of Pharmaceutical Drugs and Biological Products: Preclinical and Clinical Studies Supporting Development of Drug + Digital Combination Therapies for Chronic Diseases.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study evaluated the quality and usefulness of interactive mobile health (mHealth) applications (apps) for adults with cancer. The PRISMA guidelines were followed to add rigor to the search, as well as to the data collection and analysis. The apps available in the most used app stores (Google Play and Apple) with interactive tailored features were identified. To supplement this, a Google web search was also conducted. The apps were evaluated for their quality using the validated Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS) and for their usefulness using a checklist of end users' desired features derived from the literature. The searches returned 3046 apps and 17 were retained for evaluation. The average quality score of the apps across the sample was 3.62/5 (SD 0.26, range: 3.14-4.06), with Outcomes4me scoring the highest. On average, the apps scored 50% (SD 2.5, range: 31-88%) on the usefulness checklist, with Cancer.net scoring the highest. The lowest-scoring categories were communications features on the usefulness checklist and "information" on the MARS, indicating areas for future work. The findings identified the apps of an acceptable quality and usefulness that could be recommended to those with cancer.
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.