Maintenance Notice

Due to necessary scheduled maintenance, the JMIR Publications website will be unavailable from Wednesday, July 01, 2020 at 8:00 PM to 10:00 PM EST. We apologize in advance for any inconvenience this may cause you.

Who will be affected?


Currently submitted to: JMIR mHealth and uHealth

Date Submitted: Jun 24, 2020
Open Peer Review Period: Jun 24, 2020 - Jul 3, 2020
(closed for review but you can still tweet)

NOTE: This is an unreviewed Preprint

Warning: This is a unreviewed preprint (What is a preprint?). Readers are warned that the document has not been peer-reviewed by expert/patient reviewers or an academic editor, may contain misleading claims, and is likely to undergo changes before final publication, if accepted, or may have been rejected/withdrawn (a note "no longer under consideration" will appear above).

Peer-review me: Readers with interest and expertise are encouraged to sign up as peer-reviewer, if the paper is within an open peer-review period (in this case, a "Peer-Review Me" button to sign up as reviewer is displayed above). All preprints currently open for review are listed here. Outside of the formal open peer-review period we encourage you to tweet about the preprint.

Citation: Please cite this preprint only for review purposes or for grant applications and CVs (if you are the author).

Final version: If our system detects a final peer-reviewed "version of record" (VoR) published in any journal, a link to that VoR will appear below. Readers are then encourage to cite the VoR instead of this preprint.

Settings: If you are the author, you can login and change the preprint display settings, but the preprint URL/DOI is supposed to be stable and citable, so it should not be removed once posted.

Submit: To post your own preprint, simply submit to any JMIR journal, and choose the appropriate settings to expose your submitted version as preprint.

Warning: This is an author submission that is not peer-reviewed or edited. Preprints - unless they show as "accepted" - should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information.

Systematic Identification, Assessment and Evaluation of Smartphone Apps for Tinnitus

  • Muntazir Mehdi; 
  • Michael Stach; 
  • Constanze Riha; 
  • Patrick Neff; 
  • Albi Dode; 
  • Rüdiger Pryss; 
  • Winfried Schlee; 
  • Manfred Reichert; 
  • Franz J. Hauck; 



Modern smartphones containing sophisticated high-end hardware features, and offering high computational capabilities at extremely manageable costs, have undoubtedly become mainstream and an integral part in users' daily life. Additionally, smartphones offer a well-established ecosystem, easily discoverable, and accessible via respective marketplaces of differing mobile platforms, thus encouraging the development of many smartphone applications. Such applications are not exclusively used for entertainment purposes, but are also commonplace in healthcare and medical use. A variety of those health and medical apps exist within the context of tinnitus, a phantom sound perception in the absence of any physical external source.


In this paper, we shed a light on applications circling around the topic of tinnitus. As contributions, the proposed work (1) provides an up-to-date overview of existing smartphone apps and (2) applies the Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS) to evaluate the quality of the apps.


Based on the PRISMA guidelines, we systematically searched and identified existing smartphone apps on most prominent app markets, namely Google's Play Store and Apple's App Store. In addition, we used MARS to evaluate and assess the identified apps in terms of their general quality and user experience in-depth.


Our systematic search and screening of smartphone apps yielded a total of 34 apps (34 Android apps, 26 iOS apps). The mean MARS scores of all raters ranged between 2.65-4.60. The Tinnitus Peace smartphone app had the lowest mean MARS rating score (2.65/5.00) and Sanvello ‒ Stress and Anxiety Help had the highest mean MARS rating score (4.60/5.00). For the final MARS scores, the inter-rater agreement based on Fleiss' κ was 0.74 (Substantial), the internal consistency based on Cronbach's α was 0.95 (Excellent), and the inter-rater reliability based on Guttman’s λ6 was 0.94 (High) and based on ICC2k (lower-upper) was 0.94 (0.91 ‒ 0.97) (Excellent).


The proposed work demonstrated that there exists a plethora of smartphone apps for tinnitus. Based on MARS scores, all of the apps were rated higher than 2, suggesting that they all have some technical functional value. However, nearly all identified apps were critically restrained in terms of scientific evidence, suggesting the need of stringent clinical validation of smartphone apps in future. In our opinion and to the best of our knowledge, the proposed work is the first to systematically identify and evaluate smartphone apps within the context of tinnitus.


Please cite as:

Mehdi M, Stach M, Riha C, Neff P, Dode A, Pryss R, Schlee W, Reichert M, Hauck FJ

Systematic Identification, Assessment and Evaluation of Smartphone Apps for Tinnitus

JMIR Preprints. 24/06/2020:21767

DOI: 10.2196/preprints.21767


Download PDF

Request queued. Please wait while the file is being generated. It may take some time.

© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.