ArticleGastro hep advances2025
Usability of a Mobile Point-of-Care App for the Index of Severity for Eosinophilic Esophagitis.
Article in Gastro hep advances, 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.
- Eosinophilic esophagitis: An allergy and immunology perspective on the updated guidelines.The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: A new application (app) allows the Index of Severity for EoE (I-SEE) to be used at the point of care. We aimed to perform usability testing of the I-SEE mobile app and identify areas for improvement. Methods: We recruited 60 practitioners (20 adult and 20 pediatric gastroenterologists; 20 allergists) to use I-SEE on ≥5 EoE patients seen in clinic and undergo interviews by trained qualitative researchers. The interview guide focused on overall user experience, user satisfaction, and desired improvements. It also explored potential perceived barriers to using the app and I-SEE. Results: Though I-SEE was new to most providers, they found it took only a few minutes to calculate the score. All interviewees either "agreed" (5%) or "strongly agreed" (95%) with the statement, "The app was easy to navigate," and almost all (95%) either "agreed" (42%) or "strongly agreed" (53%) with "The app's features and functionalities were intuitive and easy to understand". The large majority (85%) reported satisfaction with the app. Responses were similar for allergists, and adult and pediatric gastroenterologists. Areas of suggested improvement included updating design features, incorporation into electronic medical records, addressing if scoring for children and adults should be different, and clarifying clinical implications of I-SEE for management. Conclusion: The I-SEE app was user friendly and able to be completed rapidly in clinical practice. Interviewee feedback led to app updates to improve visualization and use. In the future, scoring for children should be confirmed and I-SEE should be validated by linking severity to treatment and monitoring recommendations.
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.