ArticleSystematic reviews2026
Mobile apps for psychotic disorders: a systematic review protocol.
Article in Systematic reviews, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEarly intervention for psychotic spectrum disorders can improve long-term outcomes, but service availability and quality can vary globally. Mobile apps have the potential to provide personalised and accessible support for people with psychotic disorders via features such as symptom monitoring, medication reminders, and self-management interventions. Existing reviews have provided an overview of such apps and their feasibility but lack a synthesis of their efficacy, safety, and acceptability. Addressing this gap would guide future app designs and facilitate their implementation by informing clinical and policy decisions. The purpose of this systematic review will be to synthesise the evidence about existing mobile apps for psychotic disorders, including their types and features, feasibility of implementation, usability, clinical impact, and safety.
methodsThis protocol has been structured using the PRISMA-P checklist, and the PICOS framework will guide the search strategy. Six electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science, and PsycInfo) will be searched. Evaluations of mobile apps for psychotic disorders published in English will be included. Reviews will be excluded but their bibliographies will be searched for relevant articles. Two independent reviewers will conduct the title and abstract screening, full-text review, data extraction into a predetermined form, and risk of bias analysis; with any disagreements discussed until consensus at each stage. The risk of bias analysis will be conducted using the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias 2 and Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Meta-analyses will summarise data on feasibility, impact, and safety (where applicable), and app characteristics and user experience will be descriptively analysed. DISCUSSION: While current reviews synthesise information about apps for psychotic disorders, most of them have a narrow focus on specific app types (e.g., monitoring), outcomes (e.g., engagement), or study types. This systematic review will update previous reviews and add a comprehensive synthesis of app features, their safety, and their overall impact. This review will inform future app development and evaluations and facilitate their implementation in clinical services. It will also address the potential negative impacts associated with these apps and propose ways to mitigate them. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42024615781.
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.