Cited by 119Mobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsSocial Media in Health EducationMobile Learning in Education

Medical professional involvement in smartphone ‘apps’ in dermatology: Correspondence

Hamilton, A.D., Brady, R.R.W.·2012·British Journal of Dermatology

Abstract

Funding sources: none. Conflicts of interest: none declared. Madam, Smartphones (mobile phones with advanced computing capability) are rapidly gaining in popularity, and with the advent of downloadable applications known as ‘apps’, their potential to deliver healthcare is increasingly recognized. There are now thousands of medical apps available. However, recent concerns regarding safety, confidentiality, quality of content and regulation in this rapidly evolving field of information technology have been raised. We have conducted a survey of contemporary dermatology‐themed smartphone apps in which we specifically examined the authorship in order to gauge the prevalence of medical professional involvement in app development and content. Seventy‐nine dermatology‐themed smartphone apps were identified through four major online app stores. Forty‐nine (62%) apps provided reference materials, ranging from searchable, illustrated databases of common skin conditions to portals for accessing online versions of popular dermatology textbooks and journals. Ten (13%) apps offered dermatology‐based questions/multiple‐choice questions. Eight (10%) apps were intended for use as a diagnostic aid, including disease severity scoring calculators [e.g. Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) for psoriasis], apps helping to formulate differential diagnoses, and those providing automated photoanalysers for risk stratification of solitary skin lesions. Among additional apps are those providing a means of self‐monitoring (n = 5, 6%), for example allowing patients to photograph their skin lesions, plot them on a diagram and compare them over time. Seven (9%) miscellaneous apps included a video tutorial demonstrating how to perform skin biopsies; an app containing the necessary software to use a physical dermoscope attachment; and an app detailing various dermatology patient support groups.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1365-2133.2012.10844.x

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hamilton, A. D., & Brady, R. R. W.
Affiliations
Queen Margaret Hospital (GB)
Corresponding author
Brady, R.R.W.
Venue
British Journal of Dermatology
Published
2012-04-04
Volume
167
Issue
1
Pages
220-221
ISSN
0007-0963 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1596955939
Cited by
119
References
5
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 18 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 7
FWCI
31.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • British Journal of Dermatology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Social Sciences › Health › Social Media in Health Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Mobile Learning in Education
Keywords
mobile application, app development, app regulation, diagnostic aids, Psoriasis Area and Severity Index, differential diagnosis, self-monitoring, dermoscopy, mobile health
MeSH terms
Dermatology, Equipment Safety, Humans, Medical Informatics Applications, Point-of-Care Systems, Computers, Handheld, Cell Phone

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