RetroSearch Browse

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29489554/ below:

Evaluation of Smartphone Pelvic Floor Exercise Applications Using Standardized Scoring System

. 2019 Jul/Aug;25(4):328-335. doi: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000000563. Evaluation of Smartphone Pelvic Floor Exercise Applications Using Standardized Scoring System

Affiliations

Affiliation

¹ From the Department Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM.

PMID: 29489554
DOI: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000000563

Item in Clipboard

Evaluation of Smartphone Pelvic Floor Exercise Applications Using Standardized Scoring System

Kara Lauren Barnes et al. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2019 Jul/Aug.

. 2019 Jul/Aug;25(4):328-335. doi: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000000563. Affiliation

¹ From the Department Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM.

PMID: 29489554
DOI: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000000563

Item in Clipboard

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to identify smartphone Kegel and pelvic floor exercise applications (apps) and identify those with superior functionality, features, and accuracy.

Methods: We identified a complete list of Kegel and pelvic floor exercise applications by searching iTunes and Google Play stores for "pelvic floor," "pelvic floor exercises," "Kegel," and "Kegel exercises." We used a modified APPLICATIONS scoring system to evaluate all identified apps.

Results: We identified 120 apps related to Kegel exercises. Apps unrelated to the pelvic floor, unavailable in English, or duplicated on a separate platform were excluded from the analysis, leaving 90 unique apps. After a preliminary review, we excluded an additional 58 apps that were nonfunctional, required a biofeedback device, or intended for pregnant women. The final 32 apps included 15 paid and 17 free apps. Paid apps had higher rates of privacy features than free apps (80% vs 53%), used more images and figures (53% vs 41%), and were more likely to cite primary literature in their descriptions (33% vs 29%). Paid apps were also more likely to have tech support available (73% vs 53%). Overall score, however, was almost identical between the groups, with paid apps averaging 9.93 and free apps 9.41. The highest rated free and paid app both received a score of 12, consisting of Kegel Trainer and Kegel Trainer Pro, respectively.

Conclusion: The quality of the apps is markedly variable in both the paid and unpaid applications. Using the APPLICATIONS scoring system, the apps were very similar in overall quality and value.

PubMed Disclaimer