ArticlePEC innovation2025
Content and quality of smartphone applications for bariatric surgery: A review and content analysis.
Article in PEC innovation, 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Our aim was to provide a descriptive analysis of the content and quality of bariatric apps available in Germany. Methods: From November 2022 to February 2023, apps available in German used in pre- or postoperative care were searched in the Google Play, the Apple App Store, and the Register for Digital Health Applications (DHA). One author reviewed titles and summary pages. Relevant apps were downloaded and two authors assessed their eligibility. Additionally, the authors independently screened records indexed in Medline/Embase. Besides a summary of the app content, a quality assessment was performed using two checklists (the Action Alliance for Patient Safety Checklist (APS); the Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS). Results: 38 potentially relevant apps were identified, Conclusion: There are few apps in the field of BS available and the quality of their content is moderate to low. The evidence base remains unclear due to a lack of sources. Innovation: This is the first structured assessment of bariatric apps in Germany using validated checklists. The results provide a foundation for evidence-based, patient-centered app development in bariatric care and thus represent an important digital innovation in this field.
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.