@Article{信息:doi 10.2196 / /移动医疗。6445，作者=“Singh, Karandeep and Drouin, Kaitlin and Newmark, Lisa P and Filkins, Malina and Silvers, Elizabeth and Bain, Paul A and Zulman, Donna M and Lee，宰ho and Rozenblum, Ronen and Pabo, Erika and Landman, Adam and Klinger, Elissa V and Bates, David W”，标题=“面向患者的移动应用程序治疗高需求，高成本人群:范围审查”，期刊=“JMIR Mhealth Uhealth”，年=“2016”，月=“12月”，日=“19”，卷=“4”，数=“4”，页=“e136”，关键词=“审查;移动应用;移动健康;慢性疾病;背景:自我管理对于照顾高需求、高成本(HNHC)人群至关重要。移动电话技术的进步，加上以健康为重点的移动应用程序的日益普及和采用，使自我管理更容易实现，但支持使用这些应用程序的文献的程度和质量尚不明确。目的:本综述的目的是评估支持针对HNHC人群使用应用程序的文献中测量的结果的广度、质量、偏倚和类型。方法:数据来源包括PubMed和MEDLINE(国家生物技术信息中心)、EMBASE(爱思唯尔)、Cochrane中央对照试验注册(EBSCO)、Web of Science(汤森路透)和NTIS(国家技术信息服务)书目数据库(EBSCO)自2008年以来发表的文章。我们选择了涉及使用面向患者的iOS或Android移动健康应用程序的研究。 Extraction was performed by 1 reviewer; 40 randomly selected articles were evaluated by 2 reviewers to assess agreement. Results: Our final analysis included 175 studies. The populations most commonly targeted by apps included patients with obesity, physical handicaps, diabetes, older age, and dementia. Only 30.3{\%} (53/175) of the apps studied in the reviewed literature were identifiable and available to the public through app stores. Many of the studies were cross-sectional analyses (42.9{\%}, 75/175), small (median number of participants=31, interquartile range 11.0-207.2, maximum 11,690), or performed by an app's developers (61.1{\%}, 107/175). Of the 175 studies, only 36 (20.6{\%}, 36/175) studies evaluated a clinical outcome. Conclusions: Most apps described in the literature could not be located on the iOS or Android app stores, and existing research does not robustly evaluate the potential of mobile apps. Whereas apps may be useful in patients with chronic conditions, data do not support this yet. Although we had 2-3 reviewers to screen and assess abstract eligibility, only 1 reviewer abstracted the data. This is one limitation of our study. With respect to the 40 articles (22.9{\%}, 40/175) that were assigned to 2 reviewers (of which 3 articles were excluded), inter-rater agreement was significant on the majority of items (17 of 30) but fair-to-moderate on others. ", issn="2291-5222", doi="10.2196/mhealth.6445", url="http://mhealth.www.mybigtv.com/2016/4/e136/", url="https://doi.org/10.2196/mhealth.6445", url="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27993761" }