↓ Skip to main content

‘Trust but verify’ – five approaches to ensure safe medical apps

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
9 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
20 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
117 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
283 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
‘Trust but verify’ – five approaches to ensure safe medical apps
Published in
BMC Medicine, September 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12916-015-0451-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Paul Wicks, Emil Chiauzzi

Abstract

Mobile health apps are health and wellness programs available on mobile devices such as smartphones or tablets. In three systematic assessments published in BMC Medicine, Huckvale and colleagues demonstrate that widely available health apps meant to help patients calculate their appropriate insulin dosage, educate themselves about asthma, or perform other important functions are methodologically weak. Insulin dose calculators lacked user input validation and made inappropriate dose recommendations, with a lack of documentation throughout. Since 2011, asthma apps have become more interactive, but have not improved in quality; peak flow calculators have the same issues as the insulin calculators. A review of the accredited National Health Service Health Apps Library found poor and inconsistent implementation of privacy and security, with 28 % of apps lacking a privacy policy and one even transmitting personally identifying data the policy claimed would be anonymous. Ensuring patient safety might require a new approach, whether that be a consumer education program at one extreme or government regulation at the other. App store owners could ensure transparency of algorithms (whiteboxing), data sharing, and data quality. While a proper balance must be struck between innovation and caution, patient safety must be paramount.Please see related articles: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0444-y , http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/13/106 and http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/13/58.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 20 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 283 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Malaysia 1 <1%
Bahamas 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 278 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 51 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 38 13%
Student > Bachelor 32 11%
Researcher 25 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 22 8%
Other 56 20%
Unknown 59 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 54 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 38 13%
Computer Science 35 12%
Social Sciences 19 7%
Engineering 16 6%
Other 47 17%
Unknown 74 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 92. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 January 2023.
All research outputs
#438,693
of 24,615,420 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#329
of 3,805 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,051
of 280,340 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#18
of 95 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,615,420 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,805 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 44.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 280,340 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 95 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.