SynthesisBMC health services research2026
Mobile applications for ophthalmology: a quantitative and qualitative analysis.
Synthesis in BMC health services research, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the quality of ophthalmology-related mobile health applications (mHealth apps) available in Persian and English across Android and iOS platforms.
methodA structured review of apps related to ophthalmology was conducted in four mobile app stores (Cafe Bazaar, Google Play, App Store, Myket) from July 31 to August 15, 2024, using relevant English and Persian keywords. The quality of selected apps was independently assessed by three reviewers using the Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS). Clinical evidence was also searched in PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar.
resultOut of 4,968 ophthalmology-related apps initially identified, 37 apps met the inclusion criteria for final quality assessment-4 in Persian and 33 in English. According to the MARS scale, the Functionality domain had the highest average score (4.24), followed by Aesthetics (3.70), Engagement (3.22), and Information (3.13). Clinical effectiveness evidence was found for the "WHO eyes" app. The Persian app "چشم یار" achieved the highest average score of 4.42, and the English app "Eye Patient" received the highest average score of 4.83.
conclusionThis study demonstrates that the quality of ophthalmology-related apps meets acceptable criteria according to the MARS scale; however, user engagement and the quality of the information provided remain suboptimal. These results highlight the need for improving interactive features, motivational design elements, and evidence-based educational content to enhance the overall effectiveness of ophthalmology-related mHealth apps.
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.