SynthesisEpilepsia2025
Clinical effectiveness, feasibility, acceptability, and usability of mobile health applications for epilepsy: A systematic review.
Synthesis in Epilepsia, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Clinical effectiveness, feasibility, acceptability, and usability of mobile health applications for epilepsy: A systematic review.Epilepsia · 2025Pooled it
- Anti-Inflammatory and Antioxidant Strategies in Epilepsy: From Molecular Mechanisms to Threshold Management.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- When a smartphone-free childhood is not a choice: Recognising smartphones as essential medical devices.Clinical medicine (London, England) · 2026Article
- Awareness, Perceptions, Willingness, and Feasibility of mHealth Apps Among People Living With Epilepsy: Cross-Sectional Questionnaire Study.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- Digital Tools for Seizure Monitoring and Self-Management in Epilepsy: A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Mobile applications are widely used in epilepsy, although their impact on clinical effectiveness (CE) and their feasibility, acceptability, and usability (FAU) remain unclear. We conducted a systematic review investigating CE and FAU of epilepsy mobile applications using MEDLINE and Embase from database inception to June 21, 2024. We followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses reporting standards. The protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42019134848). In duplicate, we determined study quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOQAS) and the Joanna Briggs Critical Appraisal Checklist (to determine eligibility for inclusion), risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, and usability study quality using the 15-point Silva scale. We identified 8953 studies, of which 20 were included. Twelve (60.0%) addressed CE, nine (45.0%) acceptability, five (25.0%) usability, and eight (40.0%) feasibility. Five (25.0%) evaluated CE and FAU. Studies comprised prospective cohort (n = 9, 45.0%), pilot (n = 3, 15.0%), randomized controlled trial (n = 7, 35.0%), and pre/post (n = 1, 5.0%) designs. Most apps were used for self-management or to enhance education or communication between patients and providers. Cohort studies demonstrated fair quality (median NOQAS score = 5, interquartile range [IQR] = 5.0-5.8), whereas of seven randomized controlled trials, four (57.1%) had some concern for bias. Usability studies demonstrated high quality (median Silva score = 10, IQR = 10-11). Apps were predominantly intended for patient use (n = 9, 75.0%). Symptom reporting and medication management were the most common app targets in both CE and FAU studies (n = 8, 66.7%; n = 9, 69.2%), although FAU studies more frequently used monitoring or tracking (n = 10, 76.9%) and reminder setting (n = 10, 76.9%) than CE apps (n = 7, 58.3%). Investigations of application use most commonly studied CE and patient-facing apps. Additional high-quality evidence is necessary to evaluate the CE and FAU of app use in epilepsy to work toward the standardization of FAU metrics and development of implementation guidelines.
Indexed as
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.