ArticleScientific reports2023
Mobile applications in radiology: own study based on polish data.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
As the number of smartphones increases, so does the number of medical apps. Medical mobile applications are widely used in many medical fields by both patients and doctors. However, there are still few approved mobile applications that can be used in the diagnostic-therapeutic process and radiological apps are affected as well. We conducted our research by classifying radiological applications from the Google Play® store into appropriate categories, according to our own qualification system developed by researchers for the purposes of this study. In addition, we also evaluated apps from the App Store®. The radiology application rating system we created has not been previously used in other articles. Out of 228 applications from the Google Play store, only 6 of them were classified as "A" category with the highest standard. Apps from the App Store (157) were not categorized due to the lack of download counts, which was necessary in our app-rating system. The vast majority of applications are for educational purposes and are not used in clinical practice. This is due to the need of obtaining special permits and certificates from relevant institutions in order to use them in medical practice. We recommend applications from the Google Play store that have been classified in the "A" category, evaluating them as the most valuable. App Store apps data is described and presented in the form of diagrams and tables.
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.