SynthesisInternational journal of obesity (2005)2026
Commercially available mobile health applications for obesity across the lifespan: a systematic search and quality assessment.
Synthesis in International journal of obesity (2005), 2026. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMobile health applications (MHAs) represent a promising low-threshold tool to support obesity treatment. While commercially available MHAs may be most accessible to potential users, concerns exist regarding their quality, data protection, and evidence base. Therefore, this study aimed to systematically identify and evaluate these aspects.
methodsA systematic search was conducted in the Apple App Store and Google Play Store, identifying 1220 apps. After a two-stage screening process, n = 21 MHAs met the inclusion criteria and were evaluated independently by two raters using the German version of the Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS-G) with the five subscales Engagement, Functionality, Esthetics, Information, and Therapeutic Gain. Additionally, data on general characteristics (including information on the age group targeted and data protection and safety measures), inclusion of established treatment components, and evidence base, were collected.
resultsNone of the included MHAs explicitly targeted children or adolescents. Concerning privacy and safety, notable deficiencies were identified, particularly with regard to the absence of active confirmation of privacy policy and/or terms of service and a lack of integrated emergency features. Included MHAs demonstrated moderate overall quality (M = 3.31, SD = 0.50). The lowest ratings were observed on the subscales Information (M = 2.74, SD = 0.65) and Therapeutic Gain (M = 2.39, SD = 0.70). Inclusion of all components of evidence-based obesity treatment guidelines was found in only n = 5 MHAs (23.8%). Published evidence for effectiveness was identified for only n = 2 MHAs (9.5%).
conclusionsThe findings indicate a moderate quality level of commercially available MHAs for obesity treatment, with significant deficits in data protection and safety, content, therapeutic value, inclusion of established treatment components, and scientific evidence. To support safe and effective care for those affected by obesity, there is a need for further research and joint efforts (e.g., in terms of translation into routine practice).
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.