Cited by 44Digital Mental Health InterventionsMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsMental Health Research Topics

Systematic review and meta-analysis of adverse events in clinical trials of mental health apps

Open access
Linardon, Jake, Fuller-Tyszkiewicz, Matthew, Firth, Joseph, Goldberg, Simon B., Anderson, Cleo, McClure, Zoe, Torous, John·2024·npj Digital Medicine

Abstract

Mental health apps are efficacious, yet they may pose risks in some. This review (CRD42024506486) examined adverse events (AEs) from mental health apps. We searched (May 2024) the Medline, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and ProQuest databases to identify clinical trials of mental health apps. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Only 55 of 171 identified clinical trials reported AEs. AEs were more likely to be reported in trials sampling schizophrenia and delivering apps with symptom monitoring technology. The meta-analytic deterioration rate from 13 app conditions was 6.7% (95% CI = 4.3, 10.1, I 2 = 75%). Deterioration rates did not differ between app and control groups (OR = 0.79, 95% CI = 0.62–1.01, I 2 = 0%). Reporting of AEs was heterogeneous, in terms of assessments used, events recorded, and detail provided. Overall, few clinical trials of mental health apps report AEs. Those that do often provide insufficient information to properly judge risks related to app use.

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 · 10.1038/s41746-024-01388-y

Cites

60 of 60 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Linardon, J., Fuller-Tyszkiewicz, M., Firth, J., Goldberg, S. B., Anderson, C., McClure, Z., & Torous, J.
Affiliations
  • Deakin University (AU)
  • Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
  • Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Linardon, Jake
Venue
npj Digital Medicine
Published
2024-12-18
Volume
7
Issue
1
Pages
363-363
ISSN
2398-6352 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4405516678
Cited by
44
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 26
FWCI
2.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • npj Digital Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
  • Argosy Foundation
  • UK Research and Innovation (MR/T021780/1)
  • National Institutes of Health
  • Medical Research Council (MR/T021780/1)
  • National Health and Medical Research Council (1196948, K23AT010879)
  • National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (K23AT010879, R24AT012845)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Mental Health Research Topics
Keywords
mental health apps, adverse events, digital mental health interventions, clinical trials, schizophrenia, symptom monitoring, degradation rate, risk of bias, adverse event reporting, mobile application security

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