ArticleBMJ open2024
Reporting quality of published reviews of commercial and publicly available mobile health apps (mHealth app reviews): a scoping review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionReviews of commercial and publicly available smartphone (mobile) health applications (mHealth app reviews) are being undertaken and published. However, there is variation in the conduct and reporting of mHealth app reviews, with no existing reporting guidelines. Building on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we aim to develop the Consensus for APP Review Reporting Items (CAPPRRI) guidance, to support the conduct and reporting of mHealth app reviews. This scoping review of published mHealth app reviews will explore their alignment, deviation, and modification to the PRISMA 2020 items for systematic reviews and identify a list of possible items to include in CAPPRRI. METHOD AND ANALYSIS: We are following the Joanna Briggs Institute approach and Arksey and O'Malley's five-step process. Patient and public contributors, mHealth app review, digital health research and evidence synthesis experts, healthcare professionals and a specialist librarian gave feedback on the methods. We will search SCOPUS, CINAHL Plus, AMED, EMBASE, Medline, APA PsycINFO and the ACM Digital Library for articles reporting mHealth app reviews and use a two-step screening process to identify eligible articles. Information on whether the authors have reported, or how they have modified the PRISMA 2020 items in their reporting, will be extracted. Data extraction will also include the article characteristics, protocol and registration information, review question frameworks used, information about the search and screening process, how apps have been evaluated and evidence of stakeholder engagement. This will be analysed using a content synthesis approach and presented using descriptive statistics and summaries. This protocol is registered on OSF (https://osf.io/5ahjx). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required. The findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journal publications (shared on our project website and on the EQUATOR Network website where the CAPPRRI guidance has been registered as under development), conference presentations and blog and social media posts in lay language.
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.