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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Riches, Nicholas, Panagioti, Maria, Alam, Rahul, Cheraghi-Sohi, Sudeh, Campbell, Stephen, Esmail, Aneez, Bower, Peter
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