ArticleHealth science reports2026
Mobile Applications for Sepsis-Related Healthcare: A Systematic Search and Evaluation Within App Stores.
Article in Health science reports, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: Sepsis is a life-threatening condition that poses a significant global health challenge. The rapid development and use of mobile phone technology has led to an increase in mobile health (mHealth) applications (apps). This review aimed to evaluate free and publicly available mHealth apps for sepsis-related healthcare, focusing on app features, quality, and clinical calculator accuracy. Methods: mHealth apps were identified by searching Results: Out of 317 identified apps, 16 met the inclusion criteria. These apps predominantly targeted healthcare professionals and supported many functions, such as education, diagnosis, management, clinical decision support, and clinical calculators. The mean MARS score of all apps was 3.25 out of 5 (SD 0.45), signifying acceptable app quality overall. The highest-scoring domain was information (mean 3.79, SD 0.59), and the lowest was engagement (mean 2.45, SD 0.43). Of 10 apps with clinical calculators, three (30%) had a calculation error. Conclusion: Most sepsis-related mHealth apps currently available are designed for clinicians' use as clinical decision-support tools. While overall app quality was acceptable, errors in the calculator function were identified, highlighting the crucial need for better mHealth regulatory guidelines and quality control.
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.