ArticleBMC health services research2025
Expert evaluation of mobile health apps for breast cancer management: a feature-based analysis using the Mobile Application Rating Scale (MARS).
Article in BMC health services research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 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
- SurgeryMate app: developing and evaluating a training app for surgical instruments and operating room equipment.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- A Co-Design Study Developing an Early Prototype Intervention to Support Oral Anticancer Medication Use in Breast Cancer.Patient preference and adherence · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBreast cancer remains a major global health issue, with millions of cases diagnosed annually and limited diagnostic and treatment options, particularly in developing countries. This study aimed to evaluate the quality of breast cancer mobile health (m-health) applications using the Mobile Application Rating Scale (MARS) to guide healthcare stakeholders and patients identify high-quality mobile health applications that meet their needs.
methodsA cross-sectional study was conducted in Mashhad, Iran, from February to July 2023, targeting breast cancer apps. Relevant apps were identified through comprehensive searches in databases and app stores based on predefined inclusion criteria. Four health information technology experts independently assessed the apps using MARS and the Feature-based Application Rating Method (FARM), with discrepancies resolved through discussion to ensure reliability. Data analysis included calculating mean scores, testing for data normality, and examining correlations between MARS and FARM dimensions using Spearman's correlation.
resultsOf the 453 identified apps, 44 met the inclusion criteria. The average MARS and FARM score was 3.3 out of 5, indicating moderate quality. The functionality dimension scored highest at 4.1, reflecting strong technical performance; however, deficiencies in informational quality negatively impacted user trust and satisfaction. A strong correlation (r = 0.806) was observed between engagement and other quality dimensions, indicating variability in user engagement across apps.
conclusionsWhile many breast cancer apps demonstrated high technical functionality, significant informational gaps reduced user trust and satisfaction. This study underscores the need for regulatory standards to ensure reliable content in breast cancer apps. Future app development should prioritize user engagement and informational quality to better meet patient needs.
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.