The Quality of Mobile Apps Used for the Identification of Pressure Ulcers in Adults: Systematic Survey and Review of Apps in App Stores
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: The increasing global use of smartphones has contributed to the growing use of apps for various health conditions, showing promising results. Through mobile apps, it is possible to perform chronological and iconographic follow-up of wounds, such as pressure ulcers, using a simple and practical tool. However, numerous surveys have pointed out issues related to the functionality, design, safety, and veracity of app information. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to perform a systematic review of published studies regarding mobile apps and a systematic survey in app stores looking for apps developed to identify, evaluate, treat, and/or prevent pressure ulcers in adults, and to evaluate those apps based on software quality characteristics. METHODS: This review followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The main bibliographic databases were searched between January 1, 2007 and October 15, 2018, and an app survey was performed in app stores. The selected studies were evaluated according to software quality characteristics by the International Organization for Standardization/International Electrotechnical Commission (ie, ISO/IEC 25010:2011) that involve functionality, efficiency, compatibility, usability, reliability, safety, maintenance, and portability. RESULTS: The search in databases and web-based app stores returned a total of 2075 studies. After removal of duplicates and screening of titles and abstracts, 48 complete articles were evaluated for eligibility, and among these, six were included for qualitative synthesis. CONCLUSIONS: In this review, it was observed that all studies involved the initial phase of app development or improvement, and therefore, the apps still need to be evaluated using different software quality characteristics, so that in the future, a gold standard can be approached. Therefore, the prescription of an app for the identification, evaluation, treatment, and/or prevention of pressure ulcers in adults is currently limited. However, the evaluated studies provided important insights for future research. It is of utmost importance that future surveys develop apps jointly with users, using collaborative and cocreative processes and assess patients in real-world situations across different service settings, and they should consider different ethnicities, so that apps are useful to end users, such as patients, family members, health professionals, and students, in the health area. In addition, it is necessary for studies to describe the methodological course of app development in a clear and objective way in order to ensure reproducibility of the study and to offer inputs to allow future research to approach the development of ideal apps that are geared to positively impact the health of end users. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42018114137; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=114137.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,023 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».