ReviewmHealth2023
Digital health applications from a government-regulated directory of reimbursable health apps in Germany-a systematic review for evidence and bias.
Review in mHealth, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Understanding Adherence to Digital Health Technologies: Systematic Review of Predictive Factors.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Pooled it
- Real-word evidence on the effectiveness of the Endo-App in reducing endometriosis-related complaints: a retrospective analysis.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2026Article
- The future digital outpatient clinic for movement disorders: from technological innovation to ethical and systemic implementation-a position paper.Journal of neural transmission (Vienna, Austria : 1996) · 2026Review
- Development and evaluation of a web-based toolkit to inform mental health professionals about digital mental health interventions for eating disorders.Journal of eating disorders · 2026Article
- Use of single-item scales in the evaluation of German digital health applications (DiGAs): Scoping review protocol.PloS one · 2026Article
- Digital Health Applications (DiGA) for Treating Depression and Generalized Anxiety Disorder: Protocol for a Systematic Health App Review and Systematic Review of Published Evidence.JMIR research protocols · 2025Article
- Compatibility of the CEN-ISO/TS 82304-2 Health App Assessment Framework With Catalan and Italian Health Authorities' Needs: Qualitative Interview Study.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- From awareness to integration: a qualitative interview study on the impact of digital therapeutics on physicians' practices in Germany.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Applicability of a digital health application for cancer patients: a qualitative non-participation analysis.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Patient perspectives on the use of digital medical devices and health data for AI-driven personalised medicine in Parkinson's Disease.Frontiers in neurology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The Digital Healthcare Act, passed in November 2019, authorizes healthcare providers in Germany to prescribe digital health applications (DiGA) to patients covered by statutory health insurance. If DiGA meet specific efficacy requirements, they may be listed in a special directory maintained by the German Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices. Due to the lack of well-founded app evaluation tools, the objectives were to assess (I) the evidence quality situation for DiGA in the literature and (II) how DiGA manufacturers deal with this issue, as reflected by the apps available in the aforementioned directory. Methods: A systematic review of the literature on DiGA using PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science was started on February 4, 2023. Papers addressing the evidence for applications listed in the directory were included, while duplicates and mere study protocols not reporting on data were removed. The remaining publications were used to assess the quality of the evidence or potential gaps in this regard. Results were aggregated in tabular form. Results: The review identified fourteen relevant publications. Six studies suggested inadequate scientific evidence, five mentioned shortcomings of tools for validating DiGA-related evidence, and four publications described a high potential for bias, potentially influencing the validity of the results. Concerns about limited external generalizability were also raised. Conclusions: The literature review found evidence-related gaps that must be addressed with adequate measures. Our findings can serve as a basis for a plea for a more detailed examination of the quality of evidence in the DiGA context.
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.