CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 66Mobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsUsability and User Interface DesignHealth, Technology, Consumer Behavior

Usability of Mobile Health Apps for Postoperative Care: Systematic Review

Open access
Patel, Ben, Thind, Arron·2020·JMIR Perioperative Medicine
DOI 10.2196/19099PMC PMC7709840

Published version of a preprint

Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Background: Mobile health (mHealth) apps are increasingly used postoperatively to monitor, educate, and rehabilitate. The usability of mHealth apps is critical to their implementation. Objective: This systematic review evaluates the (1) methodology of usability analyses, (2) domains of usability being assessed, and (3) results of usability analyses. Methods: The A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews checklist was consulted. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses reporting guideline was adhered to. Screening was undertaken by 2 independent reviewers. All included studies were assessed for risk of bias. Domains of usability were compared with the gold-standard mHealth App Usability Questionnaire (MAUQ). Results: A total of 33 of 720 identified studies were included for data extraction. Of the 5 included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), usability was never the primary end point. Methodology of usability analyses included interview (10/33), self-created questionnaire (18/33), and validated questionnaire (9/33). Of the 3 domains of usability proposed in the MAUQ, satisfaction was assessed in 28 of the 33 studies, system information arrangement was assessed in 11 of the 33 studies, and usefulness was assessed in 18 of the 33 studies. Usability of mHealth apps was above industry average, with median System Usability Scale scores ranging from 76 to 95 out of 100. Conclusions: Current analyses of mHealth app usability are substandard. RCTs are rare, and validated questionnaires are infrequently consulted. Of the 3 domains of usability, only satisfaction is regularly assessed. There is significant bias throughout the literature, particularly with regards to conflicts of interest. Future studies should adhere to the MAUQ to assess usability and improve the utility of mHealth apps.

Verified 2026-10-06 · 1 reference not checked yet

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This systematic review of 33 studies found that usability assessment of postoperative mobile health apps is substandard: validated questionnaires are infrequent, satisfaction dominates, and randomized controlled trials rarely make usability a primary endpoint. Reported usability scores were generally above industry average, but bias and conflicts of interest are common.

Key findings

  • Of 720 identified studies, 33 were included. Among 5 randomized controlled trials, usability was never the primary endpoint; 25 studies were prospective noncontrolled and 3 were retrospective reviews.
  • Usability methods included interviews in 10/33 studies, self-created questionnaires in 18/33, and validated questionnaires in 9/33 (7 used the System Usability Scale, 1 used uMARS, 1 used technology acceptance subscales, and 1 used the Computer System Usability Questionnaire).
  • By the MAUQ domains, satisfaction was assessed in 28/33 studies, system information arrangement in 11/33, and usefulness in 18/33.
  • Usability was above industry average: SUS scores ranged from 76 to 95 out of 100 with a median of 87; uMARS score was 4.1/5; CSUQ score was 2/7, where 1 indicates greatest usability. Bias was common: 8/33 studies reported authors’ conflicts of interest, including holding shares in the app.

Methods

  • Systematic review conducted with the AMSTAR checklist and PRISMA reporting guideline; a university librarian experienced in systematic review methodology was consulted, and Rayyan software was used.
  • Medline, Embase, and Association for Computing Machinery Digital Library were searched using 4 broad themes; screening was performed by 2 independent reviewers, with full-text review and reference-list/review-article checking.
  • Included studies were assessed for risk of bias, and usability domains were compared with the gold-standard 21-item mHealth App Usability Questionnaire (MAUQ).

Limitations

  • The paper states significant potential for bias, especially conflicts of interest, hidden agenda bias, secondary gains bias, nonresponse bias, and population bias; it notes that nonresponders may report poorer usability, inflating results, and that younger populations may show inflated usability.
  • The paper states that RCTs are rare, usability was never a primary endpoint in included RCTs, validated questionnaires were infrequently used, and the SUS was not validated for mHealth apps; MAUQ correlation with SUS was not strong (r=0.643).
  • Evident from the text: the review was restricted to English-language, post-2000 full papers, excluded web/text/email-only technologies and pilot/feasibility studies without real-life postoperative analysis, and noted heterogeneity in usability definitions and methods.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2196/19099

Cites

60 of 61 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 28 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    Five included studies were randomized controlled trials.

    “Of the 5 included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), usability was never the primary end point.”
    • Also stated in: § Study Characteristics · plain
      “With regards to study design, 5 studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 25 were prospective noncontrolled studies, and 3 were retrospective reviews.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Satisfaction was assessed in 28 of 33 studies.

    “Of the 3 domains of usability proposed in the MAUQ, satisfaction was assessed in 28 of the 33 studies, system information arrangement was assessed in 11 of the 33 studies, and usefulness was assessed in 18 of the 33 studies.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Of the 5 included randomized controlled trials, usability was never the primary end point.

    “Of the 5 included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), usability was never the primary end point.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingcitation

    Nilsson et al [43] had much lower rates (57.5% on day 14).

    “others, such as Nilsson et al [43], had much lower rates (57.5% on day 14)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [43] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Findingown data

    Of the 33 included studies, 8 officially reported authors' conflicts of interest, stating that they held shares in the app.

    “Of the 33 included studies, 8 officially reported authors’ conflicts of interest, stating that they held shares in the app.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 39
  • May combine two claims. 10

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    Interview was used as a method of usability analysis in 10 of 33 studies.

    “Methodology of usability analyses included interview (10/33), self-created questionnaire (18/33), and validated questionnaire (9/33).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    System information arrangement was assessed in 11 of 33 studies.

    “Of the 3 domains of usability proposed in the MAUQ, satisfaction was assessed in 28 of the 33 studies, system information arrangement was assessed in 11 of the 33 studies, and usefulness was assessed in 18 of the 33 studies.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Findingown data

    A total of 33 studies were included for data extraction.

    “A total of 33 of 720 identified studies were included for data extraction.”
    • Also stated in: § Database Search Results · plain
      “leaving 33 studies included for data extraction.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    Validated questionnaire was used as a method of usability analysis in 9 of 33 studies.

    “Methodology of usability analyses included interview (10/33), self-created questionnaire (18/33), and validated questionnaire (9/33).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    Self-created questionnaire was used as a method of usability analysis in 18 of 33 studies.

    “Methodology of usability analyses included interview (10/33), self-created questionnaire (18/33), and validated questionnaire (9/33).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    Self-created questionnaires were used in 18 studies.

    “Self-created questionnaires were used in 18 studies.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    Of the validated questionnaires, 1 used the technology acceptance subscale.

    “1 used the technology acceptance subscale”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Average SUS scores ranged from 76 to 95 out of 100, with a median score of 87.

    “Average SUS scores ranged from 76 to 95 out of 100, with a median score of 87.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    Interviews were used in 10 studies.

    “Interviews were used in 10 studies.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    The initial search and reference list screening identified 721 studies.

    “The initial search and reference list screening identified 721 studies.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    Of the 61 full-text studies, 28 were excluded.

    “Of these, 28 were excluded, leaving 33 studies included for data extraction.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    After title and abstract screening, 660 studies were excluded.

    “After title and abstract screening, 660 were excluded, leaving 61 full-text studies to be assessed.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    Usefulness was assessed in 18 of 33 studies.

    “Of the 3 domains of usability proposed in the MAUQ, satisfaction was assessed in 28 of the 33 studies, system information arrangement was assessed in 11 of the 33 studies, and usefulness was assessed in 18 of the 33 studies.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    Of the validated questionnaires, 1 used the Computer System Usability Questionnaire (CSUQ).

    “1 used the Computer System Usability Questionnaire (CSUQ)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    Of the validated questionnaires, 1 used the uMARS questionnaire.

    “1 used the uMARS questionnaire”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    61 full-text studies were assessed.

    “After title and abstract screening, 660 were excluded, leaving 61 full-text studies to be assessed.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given

    Usability analyses have focused on satisfaction, a narrow dimension of usability, with simplistic self-created questionnaires.

    “They have focused on satisfaction, a narrow dimension of usability, with simplistic self-created questionnaires.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingnone given

    Devices were sometimes provided free of charge.

    “devices were sometimes provided free of charge”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductcitation

    The PRISMA reporting guideline was adhered to for this review.

    “The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) [26] reporting guideline was adhered to for this review.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [26] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Free provision of apps has implications on satisfaction; users who paid might have higher expectations than those given free.

    “which has clear implications on the usability domain of satisfaction; users who have paid for an app might be expected to have higher expectations than those who have been given an app for free.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Users who have paid for an app might be expected to have higher expectations than those who have been given an app for free.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    Domains of usability were compared with the gold-standard MAUQ.

    “Domains of usability were compared with the gold-standard mHealth App Usability Questionnaire (MAUQ).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The MAUQ is a gold-standard reference for assessing usability of mHealth apps.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Hidden agenda bias and secondary gains bias were common and seemingly underreported in the literature.

    “Hidden agenda bias and secondary gains bias were common and seemingly underreported in the literature.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    The user version of the Mobile App Rating Scale was proposed shortly after the Mobile App Rating Scale.

    “The Mobile App Rating Scale [22] was recently created for researchers and clinicians to assess the quality of mHealth apps, with the simpler user version of the Mobile App Rating Scale (uMARS) [23] being proposed shortly after.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [23] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    The Mobile App Rating Scale was created for researchers and clinicians to assess the quality of mHealth apps.

    “The Mobile App Rating Scale [22] was recently created for researchers and clinicians to assess the quality of mHealth apps, with the simpler user version of the Mobile App Rating Scale (uMARS) [23] being proposed shortly after.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [22] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Generalizability of results from studies [44] that included patients not used to mobile technologies may be limited and may change in the future when greater numbers of older patients are used to mobile technologies.

    “Additionally, the generalizability of results from studies [44] that included patients that were not used to mobile technologies may be limited and may change in the future, when greater numbers of older patients are used to mobile technologies.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [44] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductcitation

    The AMSTAR checklist was analyzed before conducting the review, with all methodology established prior to the review.

    “The A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews checklist [25] was analyzed before conducting this review, with all methodology being established prior to the review being conducted.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [25] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Different methods have been proposed for assessing domains of usability, such as the Post-Study System Usability Questionnaire and the System Usability Scale.

    “Different methods have been proposed for assessing domains of usability, such as the Post-Study System Usability Questionnaire [20] and the System Usability Scale (SUS) [21].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [20] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [21] Brooke, J, 1996, Usability Evaluation In Industry

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The Post-Study System Usability Questionnaire and the System Usability Scale were not originally created to evaluate mHealth apps.

    “However, these tools were not originally created to evaluate mHealth apps.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [20] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [21] Brooke, J, 1996, Usability Evaluation In Industry

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationown data

    The United States and Europe appear to be hubs of innovation in the field.

    “which appear to be hubs of innovation in the field”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Several definitions and domains of usability have been previously defined without clear unification.

    “Several definitions and domains of usability have been previously defined without clear unification [11,16,17], but with several recurring themes.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [11] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [16] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [17] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationown data

    The identified studies demonstrate growing interest in this area.

    “demonstrating the growing interest in this area”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given

    All included studies were assessed for risk of bias.

    “All included studies were assessed for risk of bias.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The 3 MAUQ domains are in line with the ISO definition: ease of use and satisfaction akin to ISO satisfaction; system information arrangement akin to ISO efficiency; usefulness akin to ISO effectiveness.

    “This tool explores 3 domains of usability, which are in line with the ISO definition: (1) ease of use and satisfaction, akin to ISO satisfaction; (2) system information arrangement, akin to ISO efficiency; and (3) usefulness, akin to ISO effectiveness.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [24] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The mHealth App Usability Questionnaire (MAUQ) was developed and validated.

    “Given the heterogeneity in definitions and methods used for assessing the usability of mHealth apps, one group has recently developed and validated the 21-item mHealth App Usability Questionnaire (MAUQ) [24].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [24] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    MAUQ explores 3 domains of usability: ease of use and satisfaction, system information arrangement, and usefulness.

    “This tool explores 3 domains of usability, which are in line with the ISO definition: (1) ease of use and satisfaction, akin to ISO satisfaction; (2) system information arrangement, akin to ISO efficiency; and (3) usefulness, akin to ISO effectiveness.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [24] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    Screening was undertaken by 2 independent reviewers.

    “Screening was undertaken by 2 independent reviewers.”
    • Also stated in: § Screening of Papers for Inclusion and Exclusion · plain
      “Screening of article titles and abstracts was performed by 2 authors independently.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    MAUQ is a 21-item tool.

    “Given the heterogeneity in definitions and methods used for assessing the usability of mHealth apps, one group has recently developed and validated the 21-item mHealth App Usability Questionnaire (MAUQ) [24].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [24] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Thorough analysis of usability is critical to the adoption of these novel technologies in the postoperative period.

    “Thorough analysis of usability is critical to the adoption of these novel technologies in the postoperative period”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    mHealth apps have significant potential during the postoperative period for encouraging earlier discharge, improving patient engagement, and offering a safety net for early identification of complications.

    “mHealth apps have significant potential during the postoperative period for encouraging earlier discharge, improving patient engagement, and offering a safety net for early identification of complications.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    There is a significant risk of bias, given the common conflicts of interest among authors of published studies.

    “there is a significant risk of bias, given the common conflicts of interest among authors of published studies.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    Those with poor usability will have little impact in health care.

    “those with poor usability will have little impact in health care”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Free devices could influence the feedback from users.

    “which could influence the feedback from users”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Devices provided free of charge could influence the feedback from users.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S1 (asserted), S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    mHealth app interventions are associated with a falsely heightened level of user satisfaction due to patients' affinities for their digital devices [62].

    “It has also been suggested that mHealth app interventions are associated with a falsely heightened level of user satisfaction due to patients’ affinities for their digital devices [62].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [62] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    High user satisfaction makes adoption by hospitals and investors more likely.

    “with high user satisfaction making adoption by hospitals and investors more likely”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: High user satisfaction makes adoption by hospitals and investors more likely.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    RCTs have previously been described as an impractical evaluation methodology for mHealth apps, due to their prolonged duration from recruitment to results and their high costs [63].

    “RCTs have previously been described as an impractical evaluation methodology for mHealth apps, due to their prolonged duration from recruitment to results and their high costs [63].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [63] source

      Not checked in the free run.

45 of 45

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The usability of mHealth apps is critical to their implementation.

    “The usability of mHealth apps is critical to their implementation.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    mHealth apps are increasingly used postoperatively to monitor, educate, and rehabilitate.

    “Mobile health (mHealth) apps are increasingly used postoperatively to monitor, educate, and rehabilitate.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The MAUQ is a gold-standard reference for assessing usability of mHealth apps.

    “Domains of usability were compared with the gold-standard mHealth App Usability Questionnaire (MAUQ).”
    “using the validated MAUQ as the gold-standard reference.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Nonresponders to usability analyses are more likely to have reported poor usability.

    “Nonresponders to usability analyses are more likely to have reported poor usability.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Younger audiences are likely to be more adept at using mobile technologies.

    “Younger audiences are likely to be more adept at using mobile technologies.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The average SUS score is 68 out of 100.

    “The average SUS score is 68 out of 100”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Users who have paid for an app might be expected to have higher expectations than those who have been given an app for free.

    “users who have paid for an app might be expected to have higher expectations than those who have been given an app for free.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    High user satisfaction makes adoption by hospitals and investors more likely.

    “high user satisfaction making adoption by hospitals and investors more likely”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Devices provided free of charge could influence the feedback from users.

    “which could influence the feedback from users”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Scores on the MAUQ have previously been shown to correlate with the SUS, with a correlation of r=0.643.

    “scores on the MAUQ have previously been shown to correlate with the SUS, this is not a strong correlation (r=0.643)”
10 of 10

Self-check

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

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • North American country counts do not add to the stated total

    Minor

    The stated 14 studies from the United States and 6 from Canada add to 20, not 21.

    Reported 21 · recomputed 20

  • Identified-study total differs between abstract and results

    Minor

    The abstract reports 720 identified studies, whereas the database search results report 721.

2 of 2

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 62 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Patel, B., & Thind, A.
Affiliations
East Surrey Hospital (GB)
ORCID
Venue
JMIR Perioperative Medicine
Publisher
JMIR Publications Inc.
Published
2020-07-20
Volume
3
Issue
2
Pages
e19099
ISSN
2561-9128 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.2196/19099
PMC
PMC7709840
OpenAlex
W3029874888
Cited by
64
References
62
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 5
FWCI
1.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • JMIR Perioperative Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Health, Technology, Consumer Behavior
Keywords
mobile health apps, usability, postoperative care, System Usability Scale, user satisfaction, conflicts of interest, risk of bias, postoperative rehabilitation

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-06.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-06.

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