Cited by 50Mobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsCutaneous Melanoma Detection and ManagementArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education

Evidence assessing the diagnostic performance of medical smartphone apps: a systematic review and exploratory meta-analysis

Open access
Buechi, Rahel, Faes, Livia, Bachmann, Lucas M, Thiel, Michael A, Bodmer, Nicolas S, Schmid, Martin K, Job, Oliver, Lienhard, Kenny R·2017·BMJ Open

Abstract

Objective: The number of mobile applications addressing health topics is increasing. Whether these apps underwent scientific evaluation is unclear. We comprehensively assessed papers investigating the diagnostic value of available diagnostic health applications using inbuilt smartphone sensors. Methods: Systematic Review—MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science inclusive Medical Informatics and Business Source Premier (by citation of reference) were searched from inception until 15 December 2016. Checking of reference lists of review articles and of included articles complemented electronic searches. We included all studies investigating a health application that used inbuilt sensors of a smartphone for diagnosis of disease. The methodological quality of 11 studies used in an exploratory meta-analysis was assessed with the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool and the reporting quality with the ’STAndards for the Reporting of Diagnostic accuracy studies' (STARD) statement. Sensitivity and specificity of studies reporting two-by-two tables were calculated and summarised. Results: We screened 3296 references for eligibility. Eleven studies, most of them assessing melanoma screening apps, reported 17 two-by-two tables. Quality assessment revealed high risk of bias in all studies. Included papers studied 1048 subjects (758 with the target conditions and 290 healthy volunteers). Overall, the summary estimate for sensitivity was 0.82 (95 % CI 0.56 to 0.94) and 0.89 (95 %CI 0.70 to 0.97) for specificity. Conclusions: The diagnostic evidence of available health apps on Apple’s and Google’s app stores is scarce. Consumers and healthcare professionals should be aware of this when using or recommending them. PROSPERO registration number: 42016033049.

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 · 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018280

Cites

45 of 45 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

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?

  • A 2017 systematic review identified 30 manuscripts investigating 35 apps most commonly intended to screen photographs for melanoma or diagnose tremor through analyses of movements.

    “A 2017 systematic review identified 30 manuscripts investigating 35 apps most commonly intended to screen photographs for melanoma or diagnose tremor through analyses of movements.”

    From What is the clinical value of mHealth for patients? (2020) · cites this paper as [5]

  • A previous systematic review with a search date of December 2016 identified six studies that reported on diagnosis of melanoma, but accuracy seems to have been overestimated because it included findings from both development and validation studies.

    “A previous systematic review with a search date of December 2016 examined the accuracy of mobile health apps for multiple conditions. This review identified six studies that reported on the diagnosis of melanoma, but accuracy seems to have been overestimated because it included findings from both development and validation studies.9”
  • The review excluded between three and five studies that reported the development (without independent validation) of new apps that were included in the other two reviews because such studies are likely to overestimate accuracy.

    “We also excluded between three42 and five9 studies that reported the development (without independent validation) of new apps that were included in the other two reviews because such studies are likely to overestimate accuracy.”

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

3 of the 48 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [4]NCBI. Mobile applications. 2017 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/?term=mobile+application

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Buechi, R., Faes, L., Bachmann, L. M., Thiel, M. A., Bodmer, N. S., Schmid, M. K., Job, O., & Lienhard, K. R.
Affiliations
  • Luzerner Kantonsspital (CH)
  • Medignition (Switzerland) (CH)
  • University of Lausanne (CH)
Corresponding author
Bachmann, Lucas M
Venue
BMJ Open
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2017-12
Volume
7
Issue
12
Pages
e018280
ISSN
2044-6055 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2771419433
Cited by
50
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 5
FWCI
1.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • BMJ Open (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Funders
medignition Inc.
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cutaneous Melanoma Detection and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Keywords
mobile health apps, smartphone sensors, diagnostic accuracy, melanoma screening, sensitivity and specificity, health technology assessment, risk of bias
MeSH terms
Smartphone, Humans, Diagnostic Equipment, 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