ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2025
Identifying and Evaluating Mobile and Web Apps for Patients to Manage Hidradenitis Suppurativa: Systematic Search in App Stores and Content Analysis.
Article in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 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.
- Patient-Centered Lupus Erythematosus Mobile Apps: Systematic Search and Cross-Sectional Evaluation by Patients and Physicians.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 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
Background: Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is a chronic inflammatory skin disease characterized by painful nodules, abscesses, and fistulas in intertriginous sites. It significantly impacts patients' quality of life. Early diagnosis and timely treatment are essential for disease control. Recurrent flares, suboptimal therapies, and prolonged misdiagnosis place a significant burden on both patients and health care systems. Objective: We aimed to identify mobile health apps (MHAs) for patients with HS and evaluate their quality through assessments by both patients and physicians. Methods: Two reviewers searched for mobile and web apps for HS, including those only available in German or English. Apps with advertising or non-patient-centered content and apps related to trials or conferences were excluded. Two apps met the criteria and were evaluated by 20 physicians and 27 patients using the Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS), user version of the MARS (uMARS), German Mobile App Usability Questionnaire, and technology affinity tools (Affinity for Technology Interaction Scale and Mobile Device Proficiency Questionnaire). Results: We identified 2 apps for managing HS that met the inclusion criteria-the HSR-Patients app and the EHSF-Hidradenitis Suppurativa app-from an initial pool of 29 proposed apps that included many nonmedical, non-HS-specific, and non-patient-centered apps. Patients rated the quality of the HSR-Patients app significantly higher than physicians (MARS: mean 3.01, SD 0.60 vs. uMARS: mean 3.53, SD 0.69; P=.009). In contrast, ratings for the EHSF-Hidradenitis Suppurativa app did not differ significantly (physicians: mean 2.81, SD 0.55; patients: mean 2.72, SD 0.79; P=.69). Usability, assessed with the German Mobile App Usability Questionnaire, showed no significant difference between physicians and patients for either app. For the HSR-Patients app, physicians and patients rated usability at 4.37 (SD 0.86) and 4.72 (SD 1.21; P=.27), respectively. For the EHSF-Hidradenitis Suppurativa app, physicians and patients rated usability at 3.88 (SD 0.77) and 3.38 (SD 1.35; P=.11), respectively. Patients showed a significantly higher general affinity for technology than physicians, as measured by the Affinity for Technology Interaction Scale (physicians: mean 3.62, SD 0.61; patients: mean 4.38, SD 1.30; P=.01). However, there was no significant difference in affinity for technology specifically when using mobile devices, as assessed by the Mobile Device Proficiency Questionnaire (physicians: mean 4.83, SD 0.25; patients: mean 4.69, SD 0.72; P=.41). Conclusions: This evaluation highlights the limited availability of high-quality, HS management-specific MHAs and underscores the need for more targeted digital tools. Differences in evaluations between patients and physicians were evident, with patients focusing on usability and practical guidance, while physicians prioritized content and usability. Neither the HSR-Patients app or the EHSF-Hidradenitis Suppurativa app demonstrated sufficient potential for long-term use, indicating the need for participatory development that includes all stakeholders.
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.