ArticlePLOS digital health2026
Value in app store metadata and user reviews: A dual perspective on quality of Parkinson's and dementia apps.
Article in PLOS digital health, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
App stores provide a range of health applications for people living with Alzheimer's disease (AD) and Parkinson's disease (PD). Users like patients can access information from both manufacturer-provided app descriptions and metadata, as well as from user reviews. However, navigating this information to identify value-generating apps of high quality remains challenging. From a health technology assessment (HTA) standpoint, quality is defined by evidence-based medicine, safety, and user-centeredness. To explore the potential value of app store information available to patients, we conducted a descriptive, mixed-methods analysis of unstructured app metadata and user feedback from the Apple App Store and Google Play Store (as of May 2024). We analyzed 1,237 AD/PD-related apps which included 50 duplicates (resulting in 1,187 apps), utilizing descriptive statistics, content analysis, large language model-supported exploratory classification, and a topic modeling approach. In total, only about 2% of the apps claimed to be certified medical devices. Moreover, 24% of Apple apps and 14% of Google apps were in the "Medical" app store genre, among which we found that 63% of Apple and 54% of Google apps were patient-facing. We manually categorized patient-facing apps predominantly under "Care Support," followed by "Health & Wellness" and "Patient Monitoring." Importantly, user feedback provided exploratory, potentially valuable patient-reported outcome and experience information but is derived from personal opinions on "user experience," "health improvement," and "costs." As quality information on DHTs could be identified in unstructured app metadata, this information should be improved in trustworthiness and more accessible to users like patients, supporting the public to find high-quality health apps. Furthermore, as user opinions contained information with potential value for patients, these should be explored as complementary value-generating indicators of health apps in future work.
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.