ArticleGastro hep advances2023
A Systematic Assessment of the Quality of Smartphone Applications for Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease.
Article in Gastro hep advances, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Evaluation of fatty liver disease self-care applications: a systematic review and evaluation of apps using the mobile application rating scale (MARS).BMC gastroenterology · 2026Pooled it
- A Responsible AI Readiness Framework for Digital Self-Management Platforms: Illustrative Application to a Rule-Based GERD Platform.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Emerging innovation, artificial intelligence, and digital technology in esophagology.Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2025Review
- A scoping review of the reporting quality of reviews of commercially and publicly available mobile health apps.JAMIA open · 2025Review
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
Background and Aims: Smartphone applications aimed at patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) have been downloaded more than 100,000 times, yet no systematic assessment of their quality has been completed. This study aimed to objectively assess the quality of GERD smartphone applications for patient education and disease management. Methods: The Apple App Store and Google Play Store were systematically searched for relevant applications. Two independent reviewers performed the application screening and eligibility assessment. Included applications were graded using the validated Mobile Application Rating Scale, which encompasses 4 domains (engagement, functionality, aesthetics, and information) as well as an overall application quality score. The associations between overall application quality, user ratings and download numbers were evaluated. Results: Of the 4816 unique applications identified, 46 met inclusion criteria (patient education = 37, disease management = 9). Mean overall application quality score was 3.02 ± 0.40 out of 5 ("acceptable"), with 61% (28/46) rated as "poor" (score 2.0-2.9). Applications scored highest for aesthetics (3.24 ± 0.48) and functionality (3.88 ± 0.37) and lowest for information (2.58 ± 0.64) and engagement (2.39 ± 0.65). Disease management applications were of significantly higher quality than education-focused applications (3.59 ± 0.38 vs 2.88 ± 0.26, Conclusion: While numerous smartphone applications exist to support patients with GERD, their quality is variable. Patient education applications are of particularly low quality. Our findings can help to inform the selection of applications by patients and guide clinicians' recommendations. This study also highlights the need for higher-quality, evidence-informed applications aimed at GERD patient education.
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.