ReviewTransplantation direct2022
Review and Evaluation of mHealth Apps in Solid Organ Transplantation: Past, Present, and Future.
Review in Transplantation direct, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Adult provider role in transition of care for young adult pediatric recipients of liver transplant: An expert position statement.Hepatology communications · 2024Review
- Individual-Level Socioeconomic Position and Long-Term Prognosis in Danish Heart-Transplant Recipients.Transplant international : official journal of the European Society for Organ Transplantation · 2023Article
- Adherence to Pharmacotherapies After Heart Transplantation in Relation to Multimorbidity and Socioeconomic Position: A Nationwide Register-Based Study.Transplant international : official journal of the European Society for Organ Transplantation · 2023Article
- Evaluation of the use of a Renal Health application by kidney transplant recipients.Revista latino-americana de enfermagemObservational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
With the rapid and widespread expansion of smartphone availability and usage, mobile health (mHealth) has become a viable multipurpose treatment medium for the US healthcare system. Methods: The purpose of this review is to identify posttransplant mHealth applications that support patient self-management or a patient-provider relationship and aim to improve clinical outcomes. The interventions were then analyzed and evaluated to identify current gaps and future needs of mHealth apps in solid organ transplantation. Results: The authors found a nearly universal dichotomy between perceived utility and sustained use, with most studies demonstrating significant attrition during the course of the intervention. In addition, interoperability continues to be a challenge. Conclusions: The authors present potential methods for mitigating the identified barriers and gaps in mHealth apps for solid organ transplant recipients.
Identifiers
What 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.