↓ Skip to main content

In Search of Mobile Applications for Urogynecology Providers

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Pelvic Surgery, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 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
In Search of Mobile Applications for Urogynecology Providers
Published in
Journal of Pelvic Surgery, April 2018
DOI 10.1097/spv.0000000000000580
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shannon L Wallace, Shailja Mehta, Sara Farag, Robert S Kelley, Katherine T Chen

Abstract

Thousands of medical applications (apps) are available for mobile devices. Finding accurate, health care provider-centered apps may be time consuming and frustrating for urogynecologists. The objective of this study was to identify and evaluate urogynecology (urogyn) apps using a modified APPLICATIONS scoring system. Urogyn apps were identified from the Apple iTunes and Google Play Stores using the following 10 MeSH terms: urogynecology, incontinence, prolapse, urinary tract infection, pelvic surgery, fecal incontinence, defecation disorder, voiding disorder, urethral diverticulum, and fistula. Patient-centered and inaccurate apps were excluded. The remaining apps were evaluated with a modified APPLICATIONS scoring system, which included both objective and subjective criteria to determine each app's ability to aid in clinical decision making and to provide informational data. Objective rating components were price, paid subscription, literature referenced, in-app purchases, Internet connectivity, advertisements, text search field, interplatform compatibility and incorporated images, figures, videos, and special features. Subjective rating components were ease of navigation and presentation. Our search yielded 133 and 235 apps in the Apple iTunes and Google Play Stores, respectively. Only 8 apps (4 of which were in both stores) were determined to be accurate and useful; these were evaluated using the modified APPLICATIONS scoring system. The top-rated app was Practical Urology. Few accurate clinical decision-making and informational apps exist for urogynecologists. Apps varied by comprehensiveness and quality. This study highlights the importance of systematically reviewing and rating medical apps. It also emphasizes the need for developing accurate apps for urogynecologists that improve health care provider performance and patient outcomes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 32 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 5 16%
Student > Master 5 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 13%
Unspecified 3 9%
Researcher 3 9%
Other 7 22%
Unknown 5 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 22%
Social Sciences 4 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 9%
Unspecified 3 9%
Psychology 3 9%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 8 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 16 April 2018.
All research outputs
#15,523,434
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Pelvic Surgery
#790
of 1,574 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#188,310
of 343,384 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Pelvic Surgery
#45
of 58 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,574 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 343,384 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 58 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.