Cited by 137Mobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsMobile Learning in EducationDigital Mental Health Interventions

Smartphone breast applications – What's the evidence?

Open access
Mobasheri, Mohammad H., Johnston, Maximilian, King, Dominic, Leff, Daniel, Thiruchelvam, Paul, Darzi, Ara·2014·The Breast

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: There are around 40,000 healthcare applications (apps) available for smartphones. Apps have been reviewed in many specialties. Breast cancer is the most common malignancy in females with almost 1.38 million new cases a year worldwide. Despite the high prevalence of breast disease, apps in this field have not been reviewed to date. We have evaluated apps relevant to breast disease with an emphasis on their evidence base (EB) and medical professional involvement (MPI). METHODS: Searching the major app stores (apple iTunes, Google Play, BlackBerry World, Windows Phone) using the most common breast symptoms and diseases identified relevant apps. Extracted data for each app included target consumer, disease focus, app function, documentation of any EB, documentation of MPI in development, and potential safety concerns. RESULTS: One-hundred-and-eighty-five apps were reviewed. The majority focused on breast cancer (n = 139, 75.1%). Educational (n = 94) and self-assessment tools (n = 30) were the most common functions demonstrated. EB and MPI was identified in 14.2% and 12.8% of apps respectively. Potential safety concerns were identified in 29 (15.7%) apps. CONCLUSIONS: There is a lack of EB and MPI in the development of current breast apps. Safety concerns highlight the need for regulation, full authorship disclosure and clinical trials. A robust framework for identifying high quality applications is necessary. This will address the current barrier pertaining to a lack of consumer confidence in their use and further aid to promote their widespread implementation within healthcare.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.breast.2014.07.006

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • There is a need for more evidence-based, psychological mHealth interventions with high-quality clinical trials.

    “there is a need for more evidence-based, psychological mHealth interventions with high-quality clinical trials.[25,29,30]”

    From Co-Designing the MOSAIC mHealth App With Breast Cancer Survivors: User-Centered Design Approach (2024) · cites this paper as [29]

    The Conclusion (page not available in our copy) calls for stronger evidence bases and high-quality clinical trials of smartphone mHealth interventions. The paper examines breast-disease apps, however, and does not call specifically for psychological mHealth interventions; its Discussion mentions psychological harm, not psychological treatment. (LLM, conf=0.89)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 29 · Cited by 137

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Jemal A, Bray F, Center MM, Ferlay J, Ward E, Forman D. Global cancer sta- tistics. CA Cancer J Clin 2011;61(2):69e90.
  2. MedicalApp Journal. http://www.medicalappjournal.com/index.php, [accessed 1.02.14].

Authors
Mobasheri, M. H., Johnston, M., King, D., Leff, D., Thiruchelvam, P., & Darzi, A.
Affiliations
Imperial College London (GB)
Corresponding author
  • Mobasheri, Mohammad H.
  • Johnston, Maximilian
  • King, Dominic
  • Leff, Daniel
  • Thiruchelvam, Paul
  • Darzi, Ara
Venue
The Breast
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-10
Volume
23
Issue
5
Pages
683-689
ISSN
0960-9776 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2057646404
Cited by
137
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 15
FWCI
25.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Breast (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute for Health and Care Research (NF-SI-0510-10186)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Mobile Learning in Education
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
Keywords
mobile health apps, mobile application, breast cancer, breast diseases, evidence base, mobile application security, app regulation, consumer confidence, breast self-examination, health education apps
MeSH terms
Breast Neoplasms, Female, Humans, Telemedicine, Cell Phone, Consumer Health Information, Evidence-Based Practice, Diagnostic Self Evaluation, Mobile Applications

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review