Reporting and understanding the safety and adverse effect profile of mobile apps for psychosocial interventions: An update

Recent years have seen a rapidly increasing trend towards the delivery of health technology through mobile devices. Smartphones and tablet devices are thus becoming increasingly popular for accessing information and a wide range of services, including health care services. Modern mobile apps can be used for a variety of reasons, ranging from education for the patients and assistance to clinicians to delivery of interventions. Mobile phone apps have also been established to benefit patients in a scope of interventions across numerous medical specialties and treatment modalities. Medical apps have their advantages and disadvantages. It is important that clinicians have access to knowledge to make decisions regarding the use of medical apps on the basis of risk-benefit ratio. Mobile apps that deliver psycho social interventions offer unique challenges and opportunities. A number of reviews have highlighted the potential use of such apps. There is a need to describe, report and study their side effects too. The adverse effects associated with these apps can broadly be divided into:(1) those resulting from the security and safety concerns;(2) those arising from the use of a particular psycho social intervention; and(3) those due to the interaction with digital technology. There is a need to refine and reconsider the safety and adverse effects in this area. The safety profile of a mobile PSI app should describe its safety profile in:(1) privacy and security;(2) adverse effects of psychotherapy; and(3) adverse effects unique to the use of apps and the internet. This is, however, a very new area and further research and reporting is required to inform clinical decision making.

Reproducibility and replicability of systematic reviews

Irreproducibility of research causes a major concern in academia.This concern affects all study designs regardless of scientific fields.Without testing the reproducibility and replicability it is almost impossible to repeat the research and to gain the same or similar results.In addition,irreproducibility limits the translation of research findings into practice where the same results are expected.To find the solutions,the Interacademy Partnership for Health gathered academics from established networks of science,medicine and engineering around a table to introduce seven strategies that can enhance the reproducibility:pre-registration,open methods,open data,collaboration,automation,reporting guidelines,and post-publication reviews.The current editorial discusses the generalisability and practicality of these strategies to systematic reviews and claims that systematic reviews have even a greater potential than other research designs to lead the movement toward the reproducibility of research.Moreover,I discuss the potential of reproducibility,on the other hand,to upgrade the systematic review from review to research.Furthermore,there are references to the successful and ongoing practices from collaborative efforts around the world to encourage the systematic reviewers,the journal editors and publishers,the organizations linked to evidence synthesis,and the funders and policy makers to facilitate this movement and to gain the public trust in research.

Classification of interventions in Traditional Chinese Medicine

OBJECTIVE: To describe the key systems used for Traditional Chinese Medicine(TCM) classification.METHODS: The TCM classifications used in the International Classification of Diseases-9 Clinical Modification(ICD-9-CM) volume 3, the ICD-10 Procedure Coding System, the International Classification of Health Interventions, and the Medical Subject Headings(Me SH) and Chinese Traditional Medicine and Materia Medica Subject Headings(TCMe SH) thesauruses were compared regarding descriptive terms, structure, and features of TCM interventions.RESULTS: The National Library of Medicine's Me SH thesaurus is ubiquitous. The ICD-9-CM(volume 3),ICD-10 Procedure Coding System, and International Classification of Health Interventions cover insufficient concepts of TCM, and cannot be used directly as classification systems for TCM interventions. In contrast, the TCM contents of the TCMe SH thesaurus are complete, systematic, and detailed, and its hierarchical structure can be used for effective TCM classification.CONCLUSION: TCM classification is very limited and flawed. The Me SH thesaurus helps decrease the detrimental effect of the language barrier. Similarly, the TCMe SH thesaurus can help those without full command of the Mandarin language to access Chinese literature, but the value of searches using TCMe SH could be improved by collaborative working with Information Specialists who are fluent in Mandarin and understand TCM.