SynthesisBMJ mental health2025
Methodological quality in randomised clinical trials of mental health apps: systematic review and longitudinal analysis.
Synthesis in BMJ mental health, 2025. 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.
- Building evidence on digital psychotherapies for adults living with depression: a systematic scoping review of populations, interventions and design features of ongoing and planned randomised controlled trials.BMJ mental health · 2026Article
- Real-world data on uptake and use of digital mental health interventions among waitlisted patients with various mental disorders.Internet interventions · 2026Article
- Strength of Evidence to Support Decision-Making on the Use of Digital Mental Health Technologies in NICE Evaluations: Cross-Sectional Analysis of Studies.JMIR mental health · 2026Article
- The effectiveness of digital interventions for enhancing empathy in adults: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Current psychology (New Brunswick, N.J.) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
questionThis study investigated the methodological rigour of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of mental health apps for depression and anxiety, and whether quality has improved over time. STUDY SELECTION AND ANALYSIS: RCTs were drawn from the most recent meta-analysis of mental health apps for depression and anxiety symptoms. 20 indicators of study quality were coded, encompassing risk of bias, participant diversity, study design features and app accessibility measures. Regression models tested associations between year of publication and each quality indicator.
findings176 RCTs conducted between 2011 and 2023 were included. Methodological concerns were common for several quality indicators (eg, <20% were replication trials, <35% of trials reported adverse events). Regression models revealed only three significant changes over time: an increase in preregistration (OR=1.27; 95% CI 1.10, 1.46) and reporting of adverse events (OR=1.32; 95% CI 1.11, 1.56), and a decrease in apps reported to be compatible with iOS and/or Android (OR=0.78; 95% CI 0.64, 0.96). Results were unchanged when excluding outliers. Results were similar when excluding three high-quality studies published between 2011 and 2013, with additional evidence for an increase in modern missing data methods (OR=1.22; 95% CI 1.04, 1.42) and studies reporting intention-to-treat analysis (OR=1.20; 95% CI 1.03, 1.39).
conclusionsFindings provide minimal evidence of improvements in the quality of clinical trials of mental health apps, highlighting the need for higher methodological standards in future research to ensure the reliability and generalisability of evidence for these digital tools.
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.