Skip to search boxSkip to navigationSkip to main content

Mobile health apps for cardiovascular risk assessment: a systematic review

  • Fabian A. Chavez-Ecos
    ,
  • Rodrigo Chavez-Ecos
    ,
  • Carlos Vergara Sanchez
    ,
  • Miguel A. Chavez-Gutarra
    ,
  • Anandita Agarwala
    ,
  • Kiara Camacho-Caballero(corresponding author)
*Corresponding author for this work
  • Universidad Científica del Sur
    ,
  • REDECS
    ,
  • Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Florida
    ,
  • Universidad Nacional San Luis Gonzaga de Ica
    ,
  • Baylor Scott & White Health
    ,
Research Output:
Contribution to journal
Review article
Peer-review

Open access

Publication Information

Output type

Research Output:
Contribution to journal
Review article
Peer-review

Original language

English

Article number

1420274

Journal (Volume, Issue Number)

Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine (Volume 11)

Publication milestones

  • Published - 2024

Publication status

Published - 2024

Publication IDs

  • Scopus: 85206098041

Abstract

Introduction: mHealth apps (MHA) are emerging as promising tools for cardiovascular risk assessment, but few meet the standards required for clinical use. We aim to evaluate the quality and functionality of mHealth apps for cardiovascular risk assessment by healthcare professionals. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of MHA for cardiovascular risk assessment in the Apple Store, Play Store, and Microsoft Store until August 2023. Our eligibility criteria were based on the 2021 European Society Cardiology Guidelines on Cardiovascular Disease Prevention in Clinical Practice, the Framingham Risk Score, and the Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease score. Our protocol was drafted using the Preferred Reporting items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. To assess quality, we used the validated Mobile Apps Rating Scale (MARS) score, which includes 19 items across four objective scales (engagement, functionality, aesthetics, and information quality) and one additional subjective scale. For functionality evaluation, we used the IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics functionality scale. We performed data synthesis by generating descriptive statistics. Results: A total of 18 MHA were included in the review. The most common scores used were the Framingham score, ASCVD score, and Score 2. Only six apps achieved an overall score of 4 or greater in the MARS evaluation. The MHA with the highest MARS score was ESC CVD Risk Calculation (5 points), followed by ASCVD Risk Estimator Plus (4.9 points). In the IMS scale, four MHA had a high functionality score: ASCVD Risk Estimator Plus (5 points), ESC CVD Risk Calculation (5 points), MDCalc Medical Calculator (4 points), and Calculate by QsMD (4 points). Discussion: A gap exists in the availability of high-quality MHA designed for healthcare professionals to facilitate shared decision-making in cardiovascular risk assessment. Systematic Review Registration: The International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, identifier CRD42023453807.

Publication metrics

Metrics

Scopus
Citations

Sustainable Development Goals

  • SDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being
    SDG 3 Good Health and Well