Cargando…

Evaluation of symptom checkers for self diagnosis and triage: audit study

Objective To determine the diagnostic and triage accuracy of online symptom checkers (tools that use computer algorithms to help patients with self diagnosis or self triage). Design Audit study. Setting Publicly available, free symptom checkers. Participants 23 symptom checkers that were in English...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Semigran, Hannah L, Linder, Jeffrey A, Gidengil, Courtney, Mehrotra, Ateev
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4496786/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26157077
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h3480
_version_ 1782380458247454720
author Semigran, Hannah L
Linder, Jeffrey A
Gidengil, Courtney
Mehrotra, Ateev
author_facet Semigran, Hannah L
Linder, Jeffrey A
Gidengil, Courtney
Mehrotra, Ateev
author_sort Semigran, Hannah L
collection PubMed
description Objective To determine the diagnostic and triage accuracy of online symptom checkers (tools that use computer algorithms to help patients with self diagnosis or self triage). Design Audit study. Setting Publicly available, free symptom checkers. Participants 23 symptom checkers that were in English and provided advice across a range of conditions. 45 standardized patient vignettes were compiled and equally divided into three categories of triage urgency: emergent care required (for example, pulmonary embolism), non-emergent care reasonable (for example, otitis media), and self care reasonable (for example, viral upper respiratory tract infection). Main outcome measures For symptom checkers that provided a diagnosis, our main outcomes were whether the symptom checker listed the correct diagnosis first or within the first 20 potential diagnoses (n=770 standardized patient evaluations). For symptom checkers that provided a triage recommendation, our main outcomes were whether the symptom checker correctly recommended emergent care, non-emergent care, or self care (n=532 standardized patient evaluations). Results The 23 symptom checkers provided the correct diagnosis first in 34% (95% confidence interval 31% to 37%) of standardized patient evaluations, listed the correct diagnosis within the top 20 diagnoses given in 58% (55% to 62%) of standardized patient evaluations, and provided the appropriate triage advice in 57% (52% to 61%) of standardized patient evaluations. Triage performance varied by urgency of condition, with appropriate triage advice provided in 80% (95% confidence interval 75% to 86%) of emergent cases, 55% (47% to 63%) of non-emergent cases, and 33% (26% to 40%) of self care cases (P<0.001). Performance on appropriate triage advice across the 23 individual symptom checkers ranged from 33% (95% confidence interval 19% to 48%) to 78% (64% to 91%) of standardized patient evaluations. Conclusions Symptom checkers had deficits in both triage and diagnosis. Triage advice from symptom checkers is generally risk averse, encouraging users to seek care for conditions where self care is reasonable.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4496786
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-44967862015-07-16 Evaluation of symptom checkers for self diagnosis and triage: audit study Semigran, Hannah L Linder, Jeffrey A Gidengil, Courtney Mehrotra, Ateev BMJ Research Objective To determine the diagnostic and triage accuracy of online symptom checkers (tools that use computer algorithms to help patients with self diagnosis or self triage). Design Audit study. Setting Publicly available, free symptom checkers. Participants 23 symptom checkers that were in English and provided advice across a range of conditions. 45 standardized patient vignettes were compiled and equally divided into three categories of triage urgency: emergent care required (for example, pulmonary embolism), non-emergent care reasonable (for example, otitis media), and self care reasonable (for example, viral upper respiratory tract infection). Main outcome measures For symptom checkers that provided a diagnosis, our main outcomes were whether the symptom checker listed the correct diagnosis first or within the first 20 potential diagnoses (n=770 standardized patient evaluations). For symptom checkers that provided a triage recommendation, our main outcomes were whether the symptom checker correctly recommended emergent care, non-emergent care, or self care (n=532 standardized patient evaluations). Results The 23 symptom checkers provided the correct diagnosis first in 34% (95% confidence interval 31% to 37%) of standardized patient evaluations, listed the correct diagnosis within the top 20 diagnoses given in 58% (55% to 62%) of standardized patient evaluations, and provided the appropriate triage advice in 57% (52% to 61%) of standardized patient evaluations. Triage performance varied by urgency of condition, with appropriate triage advice provided in 80% (95% confidence interval 75% to 86%) of emergent cases, 55% (47% to 63%) of non-emergent cases, and 33% (26% to 40%) of self care cases (P<0.001). Performance on appropriate triage advice across the 23 individual symptom checkers ranged from 33% (95% confidence interval 19% to 48%) to 78% (64% to 91%) of standardized patient evaluations. Conclusions Symptom checkers had deficits in both triage and diagnosis. Triage advice from symptom checkers is generally risk averse, encouraging users to seek care for conditions where self care is reasonable. BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. 2015-07-08 /pmc/articles/PMC4496786/ /pubmed/26157077 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h3480 Text en © Semigran et al 2015 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
spellingShingle Research
Semigran, Hannah L
Linder, Jeffrey A
Gidengil, Courtney
Mehrotra, Ateev
Evaluation of symptom checkers for self diagnosis and triage: audit study
title Evaluation of symptom checkers for self diagnosis and triage: audit study
title_full Evaluation of symptom checkers for self diagnosis and triage: audit study
title_fullStr Evaluation of symptom checkers for self diagnosis and triage: audit study
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of symptom checkers for self diagnosis and triage: audit study
title_short Evaluation of symptom checkers for self diagnosis and triage: audit study
title_sort evaluation of symptom checkers for self diagnosis and triage: audit study
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4496786/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26157077
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h3480
work_keys_str_mv AT semigranhannahl evaluationofsymptomcheckersforselfdiagnosisandtriageauditstudy
AT linderjeffreya evaluationofsymptomcheckersforselfdiagnosisandtriageauditstudy
AT gidengilcourtney evaluationofsymptomcheckersforselfdiagnosisandtriageauditstudy
AT mehrotraateev evaluationofsymptomcheckersforselfdiagnosisandtriageauditstudy