Cargando…
The Effectiveness of Electronic Differential Diagnoses (DDX) Generators: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND: Diagnostic errors are costly and they can contribute to adverse patient outcomes, including avoidable deaths. Differential diagnosis (DDX) generators are electronic tools that may facilitate the diagnostic process. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Public Library of Science
2016
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4782994/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26954234 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0148991 |
_version_ | 1782420047942123520 |
---|---|
author | Riches, Nicholas Panagioti, Maria Alam, Rahul Cheraghi-Sohi, Sudeh Campbell, Stephen Esmail, Aneez Bower, Peter |
author_facet | Riches, Nicholas Panagioti, Maria Alam, Rahul Cheraghi-Sohi, Sudeh Campbell, Stephen Esmail, Aneez Bower, Peter |
author_sort | Riches, Nicholas |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Diagnostic errors are costly and they can contribute to adverse patient outcomes, including avoidable deaths. Differential diagnosis (DDX) generators are electronic tools that may facilitate the diagnostic process. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the efficacy and utility of DDX generators. We undertook a comprehensive search of the literature including 16 databases from inception to May 2015 and specialist patient safety databases. We also searched the reference lists of included studies. Article screening, selection and data extraction were independently conducted by 2 reviewers. 36 articles met the eligibility criteria and the pooled accurate diagnosis retrieval rate of DDX tools was high with high heterogeneity (pooled rate = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.63 to 0.77; I(2) = 97%, p<0.0001). DDX generators did not demonstrate improved diagnostic retrieval compared to clinicians but small improvements were seen in the before and after studies where clinicians had the opportunity to revisit their diagnoses following DDX generator consultation. Clinical utility data generally indicated high levels of user satisfaction and significant reductions in time taken to use for newer web-based tools. Lengthy differential lists and their low relevance were areas of concern and have the potential to increase diagnostic uncertainty. Data on the number of investigations ordered and on cost-effectiveness remain inconclusive. CONCLUSIONS: DDX generators have the potential to improve diagnostic practice among clinicians. However, the high levels of heterogeneity, the variable quality of the reported data and the minimal benefits observed for complex cases suggest caution. Further research needs to be undertaken in routine clinical settings with greater consideration of enablers and barriers which are likely to impact on DDX use before their use in routine clinical practice can be recommended. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4782994 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2016 |
publisher | Public Library of Science |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-47829942016-03-23 The Effectiveness of Electronic Differential Diagnoses (DDX) Generators: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Riches, Nicholas Panagioti, Maria Alam, Rahul Cheraghi-Sohi, Sudeh Campbell, Stephen Esmail, Aneez Bower, Peter PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: Diagnostic errors are costly and they can contribute to adverse patient outcomes, including avoidable deaths. Differential diagnosis (DDX) generators are electronic tools that may facilitate the diagnostic process. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the efficacy and utility of DDX generators. We undertook a comprehensive search of the literature including 16 databases from inception to May 2015 and specialist patient safety databases. We also searched the reference lists of included studies. Article screening, selection and data extraction were independently conducted by 2 reviewers. 36 articles met the eligibility criteria and the pooled accurate diagnosis retrieval rate of DDX tools was high with high heterogeneity (pooled rate = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.63 to 0.77; I(2) = 97%, p<0.0001). DDX generators did not demonstrate improved diagnostic retrieval compared to clinicians but small improvements were seen in the before and after studies where clinicians had the opportunity to revisit their diagnoses following DDX generator consultation. Clinical utility data generally indicated high levels of user satisfaction and significant reductions in time taken to use for newer web-based tools. Lengthy differential lists and their low relevance were areas of concern and have the potential to increase diagnostic uncertainty. Data on the number of investigations ordered and on cost-effectiveness remain inconclusive. CONCLUSIONS: DDX generators have the potential to improve diagnostic practice among clinicians. However, the high levels of heterogeneity, the variable quality of the reported data and the minimal benefits observed for complex cases suggest caution. Further research needs to be undertaken in routine clinical settings with greater consideration of enablers and barriers which are likely to impact on DDX use before their use in routine clinical practice can be recommended. Public Library of Science 2016-03-08 /pmc/articles/PMC4782994/ /pubmed/26954234 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0148991 Text en © 2016 Riches et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Riches, Nicholas Panagioti, Maria Alam, Rahul Cheraghi-Sohi, Sudeh Campbell, Stephen Esmail, Aneez Bower, Peter The Effectiveness of Electronic Differential Diagnoses (DDX) Generators: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis |
title | The Effectiveness of Electronic Differential Diagnoses (DDX) Generators: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis |
title_full | The Effectiveness of Electronic Differential Diagnoses (DDX) Generators: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis |
title_fullStr | The Effectiveness of Electronic Differential Diagnoses (DDX) Generators: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | The Effectiveness of Electronic Differential Diagnoses (DDX) Generators: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis |
title_short | The Effectiveness of Electronic Differential Diagnoses (DDX) Generators: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis |
title_sort | effectiveness of electronic differential diagnoses (ddx) generators: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4782994/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26954234 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0148991 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT richesnicholas theeffectivenessofelectronicdifferentialdiagnosesddxgeneratorsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT panagiotimaria theeffectivenessofelectronicdifferentialdiagnosesddxgeneratorsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT alamrahul theeffectivenessofelectronicdifferentialdiagnosesddxgeneratorsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT cheraghisohisudeh theeffectivenessofelectronicdifferentialdiagnosesddxgeneratorsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT campbellstephen theeffectivenessofelectronicdifferentialdiagnosesddxgeneratorsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT esmailaneez theeffectivenessofelectronicdifferentialdiagnosesddxgeneratorsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT bowerpeter theeffectivenessofelectronicdifferentialdiagnosesddxgeneratorsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT richesnicholas effectivenessofelectronicdifferentialdiagnosesddxgeneratorsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT panagiotimaria effectivenessofelectronicdifferentialdiagnosesddxgeneratorsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT alamrahul effectivenessofelectronicdifferentialdiagnosesddxgeneratorsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT cheraghisohisudeh effectivenessofelectronicdifferentialdiagnosesddxgeneratorsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT campbellstephen effectivenessofelectronicdifferentialdiagnosesddxgeneratorsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT esmailaneez effectivenessofelectronicdifferentialdiagnosesddxgeneratorsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT bowerpeter effectivenessofelectronicdifferentialdiagnosesddxgeneratorsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis |