CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 303Mobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsElectronic Health Records SystemsArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Medical apps for smartphones: lack of evidence undermines quality and safety

Buijink, Arthur Willem Gerard, Visser, Benjamin Jelle, Marshall, Louise·2013·Evidence Based Medicine
DOI 10.1136/eb-2012-100885
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Increasing numbers of healthcare professionals are using smartphones and their associated applications (apps) in daily clinical care. While these medical apps hold great potential for improving clinical practice, little is known about the possible dangers associated with their use. Breaches of patient confidentiality, conflicts of interests and malfunctioning clinical decision-making apps could all negatively impact on patient care. We propose several strategies to enhance the development of evidence-based medical apps while retaining their open nature. The increasing use of medical apps calls for broader discussion across medicine's organising and accrediting bodies. The field of medical apps is currently one of the most dynamic in medicine, with real potential to change the way evidence-based healthcare is delivered in the future. Establishing appropriate regulatory procedures will enable this potential to be fulfilled, while at all times ensuring the safety of the patient.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/eb-2012-100885

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 10 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Apple Press Info. Apple's App Store Downloads Top 15 Billion. http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2011/07/07Apples-App-Store-Downloads-Top-15-Billion.html . (accessed 20 Aug 2012).
  2. Medical App Journal. http://medicalappjournal.com (accessed 20 Aug 2012).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 301–303 of 303

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Buijink, A. W. G., Visser, B. J., & Marshall, L.
Affiliations
  • Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam (NL)
  • UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology (GB)
ORCID
Venue
Evidence Based Medicine
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2012-08-25
Volume
18
Issue
3
Pages
90-92
ISSN
  • 1356-5524 (ISSN-L)
  • 1473-6810
DOI
10.1136/eb-2012-100885
OpenAlex
W2034658175
Cited by
303
References
10
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 33 · 2019: 33 · 2018: 35 · 2017: 24 · 2016: 29 · 2015: 34 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 3
FWCI
34.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Keywords
mobile health apps, smartphones, clinical decision support, patient safety, evidence-based medicine, regulatory oversight, patient confidentiality, conflicts of interest, app quality
MeSH terms
Decision Making, Computer-Assisted, Humans, Quality of Health Care, United States, United States Food and Drug Administration, Government Regulation, Cell Phone, Evidence-Based Practice, Patient Safety

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