ArticlePloS one2025
Persian adaptation and validation of the user version of The Mobile Application Rating Scale (uMARS).
Article in PloS one, 2025. 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.
- Validity and reliability assessment of the Persian version of the User Mobile Application Rating Scale.Journal of research in medical sciences : the official journal of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveHealth applications (apps) enable patients to make decisions regarding their health utilizing digitally-enabled processes for care, expand accessibility to healthcare service delivery, and raise public awareness of health. In many languages, there is still a lack of an instrument that assesses how patients perceive apps. This study aims to adapt and validate the User Version of the Mobile Application Rating Scale (uMARS) in Persian and evaluate the overall quality of the Persian meditation apps.
methodsThis cross-sectional study population comprises 86 healthcare workers in a health center in the west of Iran. The sample size was determined using Cochran's formula. First, the uMARS was translated into Persian. Then, validity was assessed using the Content Validity Ratio (CVR), Content Validity Index (CVI), and face validity. Cronbach's alpha and Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC) were used to assess reliability. Among the 124 meditation apps, Aramia met the criteria included in the study and was selected to evaluate objective quality, subjective quality, and perceived impact.
resultsThe majority of the participants were female (82.55%). More than half of the participants had a bachelor's degree (58.14%). The CVR, CVI, ICC, and Cronbach's alpha values were obtained as 0.79. 0.90, 0.93, and 0.86, respectively. These Findings revealed that the Persian version of the questionnaire has sufficient reliability and validity. Among the three subscales, perceived impact received the highest mean score (3.96 ± 0.37), and a total score of 3.74 ± 1.04 was obtained.
conclusionsA Persian version of uMARS is a valid and reliable tool for evaluating the quality of mobile health apps from the user's point of view during the development and testing process and improving the app's quality.
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.