ReviewDigital health
The utility of mHealth applications in pressure ulcer management: A scoping review.
Review in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Pressure ulcers are a persistent challenge in clinical and long-term care, often requiring timely detection, continuous monitoring, and consistent prevention strategies. As mobile health (mHealth) applications become more integrated into healthcare, there is growing interest in their potential to support pressure ulcer care, especially in settings with limited access to specialist expertise. Methods: A scoping review was conducted following the Arksey and O'Malley framework and PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Five databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, and EMBASE) were searched up to April 2025. Eligible studies included interventional and pilot technical validation trials evaluating mHealth applications used by healthcare professionals or caregivers for pressure ulcer care. Data were charted and summarized narratively with a focus on assessment, monitoring, and prevention features. Results: Four studies were included in the review. The mHealth interventions varied in delivery and design, supporting clinical assessment including educational modules, staging tools, artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted wound analysis, and caregiver-focused applications. Outcomes reported across studies included improved knowledge among nurses and caregivers, greater caregiver self-efficacy, enhanced documentation accuracy, and significant wound size reduction. Despite heterogeneity in study designs, populations, and outcomes, all interventions demonstrated positive impacts on pressure ulcer management. Conclusion: mHealth applications show promising potential to enhance pressure ulcer assessment, monitoring, and prevention. These tools provide accessible support for clinicians and caregivers. However, the evidence base remains small, heterogeneous, and largely from pilot or quasi-experimental studies, with some apps still in early validation stages. Larger, long-term evaluations are needed to establish clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and integration into routine workflows.
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.