ReviewHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Mobile Apps for COVID-19: A Systematic Review of Reviews.
Review in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Coordination on Mobile Pandemic Apps Best Practice and Solution Sharing (COMPASS) Framework: Holistic Approach to Pandemic mHealth Apps.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Recent Advances in AI-Driven Mobile Health Enhancing Healthcare-Narrative Insights into Latest Progress.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- The Healthy Environments and Active Living for Translational Health (HEALTH) Platform: A smartphone-based system for geographic ecological momentary assessment research.PLOS digital health · 2025Article
- Monitoring People With COVID-19 at Home With the COVIDFree@Home Program: Feasibility Cohort Study.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- Reviewing Mobile Apps for Teaching Human Anatomy: Search and Quality Evaluation Study.JMIR medical education · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOne measure national governments took to react to the acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic was mobile applications (apps). This study aims to provide a high-level overview of published reviews of mobile apps used in association with coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19), examine factors that contributed to the success of these apps, and provide data for further research into this topic.
methodsWe conducted a systematic review of reviews (also referred to as an umbrella review) and searched two databases, Medline and Embase, for peer-reviewed reviews of COVID-19 mobile apps that were written in English and published between January 1st 2020 and April 25th 2022.
resultsOut of the initial 17,611 studies, 24 studies were eligible for the analysis. Publication dates ranged from May 2020 to January 2022. In total, 54% (
conclusionsOur study provides a high-level overview of 24 reviews of apps for COVID-19, identifies factors that contributed to the success of these apps, and identifies a gap in the current literature. The study provides data for further analyses and further research.
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.