Smartphone Apps for Managing Antithrombotic Therapy: Scoping Literature Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Antithrombotic therapy is complex and requires informed decisions and high therapy adherence. Several mobile phone apps exist to either support physicians in the management of antithrombotic therapies or to educate and support patients. For the majority of these apps, both their medical evidence and their development background are unknown. OBJECTIVE: This review aims to investigate the available literature describing high-quality apps for managing antithrombotic therapy based on professional scientific information. METHODS: Keywords and Medical Subject Heading terms were used to search MEDLINE via PubMed and Ovid between December 2019 and January 2022. Inclusion criteria were the availability of full text and publications in the English language. Apps that solely focused on atrial fibrillation were excluded. Qualitative findings were thematically synthesized and reported narratively. RESULTS: Out of 149 identified records, 32 were classified as eligible. We identified four groups: (1) apps for patients supporting self-management of vitamin K antagonists, (2) apps for patients increasing therapy adherence, (3) educational apps for patients, and (4) apps for physicians in supporting guideline adherence. CONCLUSIONS: Throughout the evaluated data, patients from all age groups receiving antithrombotic drugs expressed the desire for a digital tool that could support their therapy management. In addition, physicians using mobile guideline-based apps may have contributed to decreased adverse event rates among their patients. In general, digital apps encompassing both user-friendly designs and scientific backgrounds may enhance the safety of antithrombotic therapies. However, our evaluation did not identify any apps that addressed all antithrombotic drugs in combination with perioperative stratification strategies. Currently, strict regulations for smartphone apps seem to negatively affect the development of new apps. Therefore, new legal policies for medical digital apps are urgently needed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".