Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Evidence assessing the diagnostic performance of medical smartphone apps: a systematic review and exploratory meta-analysis.
Buechi, Rahel; Faes, Livia; Bachmann, Lucas M; Thiel, Michael A; Bodmer, Nicolas S; Schmid, Martin K; Job, Oliver; Lienhard, Kenny R.
Afiliación
  • Buechi R; Eye Clinic, Cantonal Hospital of Lucerne, Lucerne, Switzerland.
  • Faes L; Medignition Inc., Research Consultants, Zurich, Switzerland.
  • Bachmann LM; Medignition Inc., Research Consultants, Zurich, Switzerland.
  • Thiel MA; Eye Clinic, Cantonal Hospital of Lucerne, Lucerne, Switzerland.
  • Bodmer NS; Medignition Inc., Research Consultants, Zurich, Switzerland.
  • Schmid MK; Eye Clinic, Cantonal Hospital of Lucerne, Lucerne, Switzerland.
  • Job O; Eye Clinic, Cantonal Hospital of Lucerne, Lucerne, Switzerland.
  • Lienhard KR; Department of Information Systems, Faculty of Business and Economics, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
BMJ Open ; 7(12): e018280, 2017 Dec 14.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29247099
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.
Asunto(s)
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Banco de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Equipo para Diagnóstico / Aplicaciones Móviles / Teléfono Inteligente Tipo de estudio: Diagnostic_studies / Guideline / Systematic_reviews Límite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: BMJ Open Año: 2017 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Suiza

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Banco de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Equipo para Diagnóstico / Aplicaciones Móviles / Teléfono Inteligente Tipo de estudio: Diagnostic_studies / Guideline / Systematic_reviews Límite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: BMJ Open Año: 2017 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Suiza