Alexander Ngoo1, Anna Finnane2, Erin McMeniman3, H Peter Soyer3, Monika Janda4. 1. Dermatology Research Centre, The University of Queensland, The University of QueenslandDiamantina Institute, Brisbane, Australia. Electronic address: alexander.ngoo@uqconnect.edu.au. 2. Dermatology Research Centre, The University of Queensland, The University of QueenslandDiamantina Institute, Brisbane, Australia; School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Australia. 3. Dermatology Research Centre, The University of Queensland, The University of QueenslandDiamantina Institute, Brisbane, Australia; Department of Dermatology, The Princess Alexandra Hospital, Australia. 4. Centre For Health Services Research, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Smartphone applications ("apps") exist for primary and secondary prevention of melanoma. Our aim was to review currently available apps for community, patient and generalist clinician users. DESIGN: Prospective study, April 2017 - May 2017. MAIN OUTCOMES: Appropriate apps available to Android and Apple smartphones were assessed in regards to app specific information (target user, cost, store rating, last update), functions offered and clinician, professional or scientific input and or peer review. Comparison was made with a similar 2014 review of the app market. RESULTS: 43 apps meeting inclusion criteria were found. Compared to 2014, 24 of 43 (55.8%) were new, and apps performing automated image analysis declined from 46.1% to 23.3% market share. 23 of 43 (53.4%) were free to download, 48.8% (n = 20) required payments of some form. The most common functionality was monitoring/tracking with 24 of 43 (55.8%) apps performing this. 15 of 43 apps (34.9%) reported clinician, professional or scientific input; in 2014 it was only 4 of 39 (10.3%). 2 of 43 apps (5%) mentioned peer-reviewed evidence along with professional input. Not all apps had ratings. On Android 20 of 22 apps had ratings; average app rating was 3.5, range 1.6 to 4.6. On Apple, 13 of 13 had ratings; average rating was 3.5; range 1- 5. CONCLUSIONS: Since 2014 there have been an expanding and changing landscape of apps targeting melanoma diagnosis. There remains a lack of evidence backing their efficacy. This is concerning given their public availability and the gravity of their subject matter.
BACKGROUND: Smartphone applications ("apps") exist for primary and secondary prevention of melanoma. Our aim was to review currently available apps for community, patient and generalist clinician users. DESIGN: Prospective study, April 2017 - May 2017. MAIN OUTCOMES: Appropriate apps available to Android and Apple smartphones were assessed in regards to app specific information (target user, cost, store rating, last update), functions offered and clinician, professional or scientific input and or peer review. Comparison was made with a similar 2014 review of the app market. RESULTS: 43 apps meeting inclusion criteria were found. Compared to 2014, 24 of 43 (55.8%) were new, and apps performing automated image analysis declined from 46.1% to 23.3% market share. 23 of 43 (53.4%) were free to download, 48.8% (n = 20) required payments of some form. The most common functionality was monitoring/tracking with 24 of 43 (55.8%) apps performing this. 15 of 43 apps (34.9%) reported clinician, professional or scientific input; in 2014 it was only 4 of 39 (10.3%). 2 of 43 apps (5%) mentioned peer-reviewed evidence along with professional input. Not all apps had ratings. On Android 20 of 22 apps had ratings; average app rating was 3.5, range 1.6 to 4.6. On Apple, 13 of 13 had ratings; average rating was 3.5; range 1- 5. CONCLUSIONS: Since 2014 there have been an expanding and changing landscape of apps targeting melanoma diagnosis. There remains a lack of evidence backing their efficacy. This is concerning given their public availability and the gravity of their subject matter.
Authors: Y Chung; A A J van der Sande; K P de Roos; M W Bekkenk; E R M de Haas; N W J Kelleners-Smeets; N A Kukutsch Journal: J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol Date: 2019-09-12 Impact factor: 6.166
Authors: Anna Sophie Jahn; Alexander Andreas Navarini; Sara Elisa Cerminara; Lisa Kostner; Stephanie Marie Huber; Michael Kunz; Julia-Tatjana Maul; Reinhard Dummer; Seraina Sommer; Anja Dominique Neuner; Mitchell Paul Levesque; Phil Fang Cheng; Lara Valeska Maul Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-08-07 Impact factor: 6.575