Background Clinicians need easy access to evidence-based information to inform their clinical practice. Point-of-care information summaries are increasingly available in the form of smartphone apps. However, the quality of information from the apps is questionable as there is currently no regulation on the content of the medical apps.
Objectives This study aimed to systematically assess the quality and content of the medical apps providing point-of-care information summaries that were available in two major app stores. We evaluated apps designed specifically for healthcare professionals and assessed their content development, editorial policy, coverage of medical conditions and trustworthiness.
Methods We conducted a systematic assessment of medical apps providing point-of-care information summaries available in Google Play and Apple app stores. Apps launched or updated since January 2020 were identified through a systematic search using 42matters. Apps meeting the inclusion criteria were downloaded and assessed. The data extraction and app assessment were done in parallel and independently by at least two reviewers. Apps were evaluated against the adapted criteria: (1) general characteristics, (2) content presentation of the summaries, (3) editorial quality, (4) evidence-based methodology, (5) coverage (volume) of the medical conditions, (6) usability of apps and (7) trustworthiness of the app based on HONcode principles. HONcode principles are guidelines used to inform users about the credibility and reliability of health information online. The results were reported as a narrative review.
Results Eight medical apps met the inclusion criteria and were systematically appraised. Based on our evaluation criteria, UpToDate supported 16 languages, and all other apps were English. Bullet points and brief paragraphs were used in all apps, and only DynaMed and Micromedex and Pathway-medical knowledge provided a formal grading system for the strength of recommendations for all the medical conditions in their apps. All the other apps either lacked a formal grading system altogether or offered one for some of the medical conditions. About 30% of the editorial quality assessment and 47.5% of the evidence-based methodology assessment were unclear or missing. UpToDate contained the most point-of-care evidence-based documents with >10 500 documents. All apps except 5-Minute Clinical Consult and DynaMed and Micromedex were available for offline access. Only Medscape complied with the HONcode principles.
Conclusions Future apps should report a more detailed evidence-based methodology, be accessible for offline use and support search in more than one language. There should be clearer information provided in future apps regarding the declaration of authorship and conflict of interest.
- evidence-based practice
Data availability statement
All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Contributors LTC is the guarantor of the study. LTC conceived of the presented idea. ML, XL and JZQC processed the data. ML wrote the manuscript with support from XL, JZQC, ESL, HS and LTC. LTC supervised the project.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests LTC was a member of the Editorial Board for the journal but was not involved with the decision or peer-review process. The protocol of this study was registered at OSF registries (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/X7E3T).
Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.