ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2025
Mobile applications for atrial fibrillation self-management: a systematic search and evaluation.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common cardiac arrhythmia, increasing the risk of stroke, heart failure, and healthcare costs. Although patient self-management can improve outcomes, sustaining long-term engagement is often difficult. Mobile health applications may help address this gap, but their quality and clinical alignment have not been systematically assessed using a validated framework. A structured search of the Apple App Store and Google Play Store identified free, English-language apps supporting AF self-management. Eligible apps included features such as symptom tracking, medication reminders, or educational content. App quality was assessed using the Mobile Application Rating Scale (MARS), which evaluates engagement, functionality, aesthetics, and information quality. Of 455 apps identified, five met all inclusion criteria. Common features included symptom tracking and medication logging, but coverage of evidence-based care domains varied. Mean MARS scores ranged from 4.07 to 4.53 out of 5. Higher-performing apps excelled in functionality and information quality but often lacked comprehensive integration of guideline-recommended care, such as stroke risk assessment or personalized feedback. These findings highlight a gap in high-quality, clinically grounded digital tools for AF self-care. Improved co-design processes and clearer frameworks for app evaluation may help guide the development and selection of effective tools to support AF self-management.
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.