Mobile applications in otolaryngology for patients: An update
Mobile applications in otolaryngology for patients: An update
复制标题
DOI：
10.1002/lio2.201
复制
发表时间：
2018-12-01
影响因子：
1.9
通讯作者：
Salvinelli, Fabrizio
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Casale, Manuele;Costantino, Andrea;Salvinelli, Fabrizio
目的近年来，智能手机和平板电脑在发达国家得到普及，医疗保健相关的应用程序在不同的专业领域都在以惊人的速度增长。本研究的目的是对当前为患者开发的耳鼻咽喉头颈外科（OtoHNS）应用程序进行最新综述。方法本次移动的应用审查于2017年9月进行。在Apple Store和Google Play中使用各种关键词搜索了关于OtoHNS的相关应用程序。我们为OtoHNS患者提供了有用的应用程序。排除了医学生、医生（95个应用程序）和非英语应用程序（6个应用程序）。结果在我们的选择过程结束时，216个应用程序已被纳入移动的应用程序审查。每年在OtoHNS发布的应用程序数量每年都在增加。最常见的应用程序是关于听力的，特别是216个中的63个（29%）是听力测试; 216个中的75个（35%）用于耳鸣治疗; 216个中的10个（5%）用于患者周围的声音测量; 216个中的7个（3%）用于治疗眩晕。216个应用程序中有137个（63%）是免费的。在216个应用程序中，只有73个（34%）的医生明确参与了应用程序的开发。216个中有163个（75%）没有用户评级。结论应用程序越来越容易获得，尽管它们在临床实践中的使用尚未完全被接受。我们的审查表明，大多数应用程序都是在没有耳鼻喉科医生指导的情况下创建的。需要采取进一步措施来规范应用程序的开发。希望有一个“应用程序委员会”，如科学期刊的编辑委员会，在应用程序完全纳入临床实践和医学教育之前，对应用程序的质量、有效性和有效性进行评估。证据等级N/A
Objective Recently smartphones and tablets have spread in developed countries, and healthcare-related apps are growing incredibly in different specialties. The aim of this study is to provide an up-to-date review of the current OtoHNS (otolaryngology-head and neck surgery) apps developed for patients. Methods This mobile applications review was conducted in September 2017. Relevant apps about OtoHNS were searched in the Apple Store and in the Google Play using various keywords. We included helpful apps for OtoHNS patients. Apps for medical students, physician (95 apps) and non-English apps (6 apps) were excluded. Results At the end of our selection process, 216 apps have been included for mobile applications review. The number of apps published per year in OtoHNS has increased each year. The most common apps were about hearing, in particular 63 of 216 (29%) were hearing test; 75 of 216 (35%) for tinnitus treatment; 10 of 216 (5%) for sounds measurement around the patients; and 7 of 216 (3%) to treat vertigo. One hundred thirty-seven of 216 (63%) apps were free of charge. Physicians were clearly involved in the app's development in only 73 of 216 (34%) apps. One hundred sixty-three of 216 (75%) had no user ratings. Conclusions Apps are increasingly and easily accessible, although their use in clinical practice is not yet totally accepted. Our review showed that most apps have been created with no guidance from otolaryngologist. Further steps are needed to regulate apps' development. Hoping an "App Board," such as editorial board for scientific journal, to assess app quality, validity, and effectiveness before they can be fully incorporated into clinical practice and medical education. Level of Evidence N/A