ArticleScientific reports2025
Evaluation of medical education mobile apps with MARS and MARuL in a TPACK informed model.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The evaluation of medical education apps is paramount for ensuring their effective implementation, particularly in the post-COVID-19 landscape. The study aims to evaluate medical education mobile apps using two current and validated evaluation tools. It also explores how effectively these tools measure the mobile app's impact on the medical education outcomes. Following the screening of 409 records using the PRISMA method, 30 mobile apps in the field of medical education were evaluated employing the MARS (Mobile Application Rating Scale) and MARuL (Mobile App Rubric for Learning) assessment tools. A majority of mobile apps received acceptable scores: 20 mobile apps (67%) met the MARS threshold (> 0.3), and 22 mobile apps (73%) met the MARuL threshold (> 51). Findings indicate that while MARS and MARuL provide useful evaluations, both inadequately address pedagogical aspects within the TPACK model; MARS overlooks educational objectives, and MARuL omits key criteria such as cognitive development, practice targets, motivation, goal orientation, effective scaffolding, self-directed learning, curriculum oriented, critical thinking and authenticity.
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.