TY - JOUR

T1 - Expert Involvement and Adherence to Medical Evidence in Medical Mobile Phone Apps

T2 - A Systematic Review

AU - Subhi, Yousif

AU - Bube, Sarah Hjartbro

AU - Rolskov Bojsen, Signe

AU - Skou Thomsen, Ann Sofia

AU - Konge, Lars

PY - 2015

Y1 - 2015

N2 - BACKGROUND: Both clinicians and patients use medical mobile phone apps. Anyone can publish medical apps, which leads to contents with variable quality that may have a serious impact on human lives. We herein provide an overview of the prevalence of expert involvement in app development and whether or not app contents adhere to current medical evidence.OBJECTIVE: To systematically review studies evaluating expert involvement or adherence of app content to medical evidence in medical mobile phone apps.METHODS: We systematically searched 3 databases (PubMed, The Cochrane Library, and EMBASE), and included studies evaluating expert involvement or adherence of app content to medical evidence in medical mobile phone apps. Two authors performed data extraction independently. Qualitative analysis of the included studies was performed.RESULTS: Based on inclusion criteria, 52 studies were included in this review. These studies assessed a total of 6520 apps. Studies dealt with a variety of medical specialties and topics. As much as 28 studies assessed expert involvement, which was found in 9-67% of the assessed apps. Thirty studies (including 6 studies that also assessed expert involvement) assessed adherence of app content to current medical evidence. Thirteen studies found that 10-87% of the assessed apps adhered fully to the compared evidence (published studies, recommendations, and guidelines). Seventeen studies found that none of the assessed apps (n=2237) adhered fully to the compared evidence.CONCLUSIONS: Most medical mobile phone apps lack expert involvement and do not adhere to relevant medical evidence.

AB - BACKGROUND: Both clinicians and patients use medical mobile phone apps. Anyone can publish medical apps, which leads to contents with variable quality that may have a serious impact on human lives. We herein provide an overview of the prevalence of expert involvement in app development and whether or not app contents adhere to current medical evidence.OBJECTIVE: To systematically review studies evaluating expert involvement or adherence of app content to medical evidence in medical mobile phone apps.METHODS: We systematically searched 3 databases (PubMed, The Cochrane Library, and EMBASE), and included studies evaluating expert involvement or adherence of app content to medical evidence in medical mobile phone apps. Two authors performed data extraction independently. Qualitative analysis of the included studies was performed.RESULTS: Based on inclusion criteria, 52 studies were included in this review. These studies assessed a total of 6520 apps. Studies dealt with a variety of medical specialties and topics. As much as 28 studies assessed expert involvement, which was found in 9-67% of the assessed apps. Thirty studies (including 6 studies that also assessed expert involvement) assessed adherence of app content to current medical evidence. Thirteen studies found that 10-87% of the assessed apps adhered fully to the compared evidence (published studies, recommendations, and guidelines). Seventeen studies found that none of the assessed apps (n=2237) adhered fully to the compared evidence.CONCLUSIONS: Most medical mobile phone apps lack expert involvement and do not adhere to relevant medical evidence.

U2 - 10.2196/mhealth.4169

DO - 10.2196/mhealth.4169

M3 - Review

C2 - 26215371

VL - 3

JO - J M I R mHealth and uHealth

JF - J M I R mHealth and uHealth

SN - 2291-5222

IS - 3

M1 - e79

ER -