Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38104213›Full record

ReviewNPJ digital medicine2023

An umbrella review of effectiveness and efficacy trials for app-based health interventions.

Sherry On Ki Chong, Sara Pedron, Nancy Abdelmalak, Michael Laxy, Anna-Janina Stephan

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in NPJ digital medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Role of Digital Health on Palliative Care: Umbrella Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Sherry On Ki ChongProfessorship of Public Health and Prevention, TUM School of Medicine and Health, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany. sherry.chong@tum.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9234-0250
Sara PedronProfessorship of Public Health and Prevention, TUM School of Medicine and Health, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8127-573X
Nancy AbdelmalakProfessorship of Public Health and Prevention, TUM School of Medicine and Health, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3980-907X
Michael LaxyProfessorship of Public Health and Prevention, TUM School of Medicine and Health, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Anna-Janina StephanProfessorship of Public Health and Prevention, TUM School of Medicine and Health, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6438-2058

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Health interventions based on mobile phone or tablet applications (apps) are promising tools to help patients manage their conditions more effectively. Evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on efficacy and effectiveness of such interventions is increasingly available. This umbrella review aimed at mapping and narratively summarizing published systematic reviews on efficacy and effectiveness of mobile app-based health interventions within patient populations. We followed a pre-specified publicly available protocol. Systematic reviews were searched in two databases from inception until August 28, 2023. Reviews that included RCTs evaluating integrated or stand-alone health app interventions in patient populations with regard to efficacy/effectiveness were considered eligible. Information on indications, outcomes, app characteristics, efficacy/effectiveness results and authors' conclusions was extracted. Methodological quality was assessed using the AMSTAR2 tool. We identified 48 systematic reviews published between 2013 and 2023 (35 with meta-analyses) that met our inclusion criteria. Eleven reviews included a broad spectrum of conditions, thirteen focused on diabetes, five on anxiety and/or depression, and others on various other indications. Reported outcomes ranged from medication adherence to laboratory, anthropometric and functional parameters, symptom scores and quality of life. Fourty-one reviews concluded that health apps may be effective in improving health outcomes. We rated one review as moderate quality. Here we report that the synthesized evidence on health app effectiveness varies largely between indications. Future RCTs should consider reporting behavioral (process) outcomes and measures of healthcare resource utilization to provide deeper insights on mechanisms that make health apps effective, and further elucidate their impact on healthcare systems.

Identifiers

PMID38104213
PMCPMC10725431

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.