ArticleDigital health
Heterogeneity of information across seven curated national or international digital health app repositories.
Article in Digital health. 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Digital health applications (health apps) are increasingly integrated in clinical care. Yet the information describing these apps varies across curated app repositories supporting prescription. We aimed to identify the information items used to describe health apps in repositories; and to quantify the completeness of publicly displayed app-entry information across repositories. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study of seven national or international curated health app repositories: mHealthBelgium, DiGA, AppThera, ORCHA, GGD AppStore, MIND, and AppGuide. In January 2025, we randomly selected 140 health apps, with 20 apps per repository. For each app, one reviewer extracted the publicly available information displayed in the repository entry and inductively identified the information items reported (i.e., atomic information elements used to describe apps). These information items were then grouped into categories by an expert committee. We calculated, for each repository, the median number of items reported across apps, overall and by category. Results: Health apps were described by 32 information items grouped into 10 categories: general information, regulatory information, compatibility, costs, indication, functions, evidence, user experience, data governance and security, and change history. The median number of items reported in repositories ranged from a median of 9/32 items, IQR 9 to 11 in MIND to 27/32, IQR 26 to 28 in DiGA. Only, three repositories (AppThera, DiGA and AppGuide) systematically reported information on the evidence supporting the apps for all listed apps. Conclusions: Curated health app repositories differed in the information items presented to clinicians and patients. Incomplete reporting of clinically relevant information, particularly evidence and data governance, may limit informed app selection and prescription. Minimum reporting standards are needed to enable safe prescription and reliable integration of health apps into clinical practice.
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.