| Title |
Mobile Clinical Decision Support Systems and Applications: A Literature and Commercial Review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Medical Systems, January 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10916-013-0004-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Borja Martínez-Pérez, Isabel de la Torre-Díez, Miguel López-Coronado, Beatriz Sainz-de-Abajo, Montserrat Robles, Juan Miguel García-Gómez |
| Abstract |
The latest advances in eHealth and mHealth have propitiated the rapidly creation and expansion of mobile applications for health care. One of these types of applications are the clinical decision support systems, which nowadays are being implemented in mobile apps to facilitate the access to health care professionals in their daily clinical decisions. The aim of this paper is twofold. Firstly, to make a review of the current systems available in the literature and in commercial stores. Secondly, to analyze a sample of applications in order to obtain some conclusions and recommendations. Two reviews have been done: a literature review on Scopus, IEEE Xplore, Web of Knowledge and PubMed and a commercial review on Google play and the App Store. Five applications from each review have been selected to develop an in-depth analysis and to obtain more information about the mobile clinical decision support systems. Ninety-two relevant papers and 192 commercial apps were found. Forty-four papers were focused only on mobile clinical decision support systems. One hundred seventy-one apps were available on Google play and 21 on the App Store. The apps are designed for general medicine and 37 different specialties, with some features common in all of them despite of the different medical fields objective. The number of mobile clinical decision support applications and their inclusion in clinical practices has risen in the last years. However, developers must be careful with their interface or the easiness of use, which can impoverish the experience of the users. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Argentina | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 300 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 4 | 1% |
| Germany | 2 | <1% |
| United States | 2 | <1% |
| Malaysia | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| Portugal | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 285 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 69 | 23% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 40 | 13% |
| Researcher | 30 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 28 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 27 | 9% |
| Other | 59 | 20% |
| Unknown | 47 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Computer Science | 68 | 23% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 66 | 22% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 27 | 9% |
| Social Sciences | 17 | 6% |
| Engineering | 15 | 5% |
| Other | 48 | 16% |
| Unknown | 59 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 13 January 2014.
All research outputs
#18,360,179
of 22,739,983 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Systems
#804
of 1,144 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#228,693
of 304,743 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Systems
#5
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,739,983 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,144 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.5. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 304,743 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.