ArticleJournal of medical systems2021
Quality Assessment of Health-apps using a Public Agency Quality and Safety Seal. The Appsaludable Case.
Article in Journal of medical systems, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- mHealth Impact on Gait and Dynamic Balance Outcomes in Neurorehabilitation: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Journal of medical systems · 2023Pooled it
- "Towards harmonizing assessment and reimbursement of digital medical devices in the EU through mutual learning".NPJ digital medicine · 2024Review
- Clinical Validation of Digital Healthcare Solutions: State of the Art, Challenges and Opportunities.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Standards and validation practices regarding mobile health apps need to be established to ensure their proper use and integration into medical practice. This paper proposes an innovative and integrative approach to examine and compare the quality of a certified health mobile applications set. A double classification framework (verified and perceived quality) is proposed and validated to evaluate the quality of 22 verified health mobile apps, particularly to understand whether these apps provide the service demanded by its users. Evaluation of verified quality was based on a certification public program. To analysis user satisfaction, we used content analysis to examine and extract words and expressions contained in online reviews (1,574 reviews were analyzed). The R language was used to scrape data and to perform all statistical analyses. The results did not confirm a significant relationship between both classifications (p > .05). However, the requirements with the highest degree of compliance ("design and relevance" and "quality and safety") of the app accreditation program were the best rated by the users of the apps in their comments. Reflections derived from this paper represent an important contribution to the knowledge base in the expanding research area of mobile health.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34091739What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.