Cargando…
The diagnostic and triage accuracy of digital and online symptom checker tools: a systematic review
Digital and online symptom checkers are an increasingly adopted class of health technologies that enable patients to input their symptoms and biodata to produce a set of likely diagnoses and associated triage advice. However, concerns regarding the accuracy and safety of these symptom checkers have...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Nature Publishing Group UK
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9385087/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35977992 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41746-022-00667-w |
_version_ | 1784769522058657792 |
---|---|
author | Wallace, William Chan, Calvin Chidambaram, Swathikan Hanna, Lydia Iqbal, Fahad Mujtaba Acharya, Amish Normahani, Pasha Ashrafian, Hutan Markar, Sheraz R. Sounderajah, Viknesh Darzi, Ara |
author_facet | Wallace, William Chan, Calvin Chidambaram, Swathikan Hanna, Lydia Iqbal, Fahad Mujtaba Acharya, Amish Normahani, Pasha Ashrafian, Hutan Markar, Sheraz R. Sounderajah, Viknesh Darzi, Ara |
author_sort | Wallace, William |
collection | PubMed |
description | Digital and online symptom checkers are an increasingly adopted class of health technologies that enable patients to input their symptoms and biodata to produce a set of likely diagnoses and associated triage advice. However, concerns regarding the accuracy and safety of these symptom checkers have been raised. This systematic review evaluates the accuracy of symptom checkers in providing diagnoses and appropriate triage advice. MEDLINE and Web of Science were searched for studies that used either real or simulated patients to evaluate online or digital symptom checkers. The primary outcomes were the diagnostic and triage accuracy of the symptom checkers. The QUADAS-2 tool was used to assess study quality. Of the 177 studies retrieved, 10 studies met the inclusion criteria. Researchers evaluated the accuracy of symptom checkers using a variety of medical conditions, including ophthalmological conditions, inflammatory arthritides and HIV. A total of 50% of the studies recruited real patients, while the remainder used simulated cases. The diagnostic accuracy of the primary diagnosis was low across included studies (range: 19–37.9%) and varied between individual symptom checkers, despite consistent symptom data input. Triage accuracy (range: 48.8–90.1%) was typically higher than diagnostic accuracy. Overall, the diagnostic and triage accuracy of symptom checkers are variable and of low accuracy. Given the increasing push towards adopting this class of technologies across numerous health systems, this study demonstrates that reliance upon symptom checkers could pose significant patient safety hazards. Large-scale primary studies, based upon real-world data, are warranted to demonstrate the adequate performance of these technologies in a manner that is non-inferior to current best practices. Moreover, an urgent assessment of how these systems are regulated and implemented is required. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9385087 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Nature Publishing Group UK |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-93850872022-08-18 The diagnostic and triage accuracy of digital and online symptom checker tools: a systematic review Wallace, William Chan, Calvin Chidambaram, Swathikan Hanna, Lydia Iqbal, Fahad Mujtaba Acharya, Amish Normahani, Pasha Ashrafian, Hutan Markar, Sheraz R. Sounderajah, Viknesh Darzi, Ara NPJ Digit Med Review Article Digital and online symptom checkers are an increasingly adopted class of health technologies that enable patients to input their symptoms and biodata to produce a set of likely diagnoses and associated triage advice. However, concerns regarding the accuracy and safety of these symptom checkers have been raised. This systematic review evaluates the accuracy of symptom checkers in providing diagnoses and appropriate triage advice. MEDLINE and Web of Science were searched for studies that used either real or simulated patients to evaluate online or digital symptom checkers. The primary outcomes were the diagnostic and triage accuracy of the symptom checkers. The QUADAS-2 tool was used to assess study quality. Of the 177 studies retrieved, 10 studies met the inclusion criteria. Researchers evaluated the accuracy of symptom checkers using a variety of medical conditions, including ophthalmological conditions, inflammatory arthritides and HIV. A total of 50% of the studies recruited real patients, while the remainder used simulated cases. The diagnostic accuracy of the primary diagnosis was low across included studies (range: 19–37.9%) and varied between individual symptom checkers, despite consistent symptom data input. Triage accuracy (range: 48.8–90.1%) was typically higher than diagnostic accuracy. Overall, the diagnostic and triage accuracy of symptom checkers are variable and of low accuracy. Given the increasing push towards adopting this class of technologies across numerous health systems, this study demonstrates that reliance upon symptom checkers could pose significant patient safety hazards. Large-scale primary studies, based upon real-world data, are warranted to demonstrate the adequate performance of these technologies in a manner that is non-inferior to current best practices. Moreover, an urgent assessment of how these systems are regulated and implemented is required. Nature Publishing Group UK 2022-08-17 /pmc/articles/PMC9385087/ /pubmed/35977992 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41746-022-00667-w Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Review Article Wallace, William Chan, Calvin Chidambaram, Swathikan Hanna, Lydia Iqbal, Fahad Mujtaba Acharya, Amish Normahani, Pasha Ashrafian, Hutan Markar, Sheraz R. Sounderajah, Viknesh Darzi, Ara The diagnostic and triage accuracy of digital and online symptom checker tools: a systematic review |
title | The diagnostic and triage accuracy of digital and online symptom checker tools: a systematic review |
title_full | The diagnostic and triage accuracy of digital and online symptom checker tools: a systematic review |
title_fullStr | The diagnostic and triage accuracy of digital and online symptom checker tools: a systematic review |
title_full_unstemmed | The diagnostic and triage accuracy of digital and online symptom checker tools: a systematic review |
title_short | The diagnostic and triage accuracy of digital and online symptom checker tools: a systematic review |
title_sort | diagnostic and triage accuracy of digital and online symptom checker tools: a systematic review |
topic | Review Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9385087/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35977992 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41746-022-00667-w |
work_keys_str_mv | AT wallacewilliam thediagnosticandtriageaccuracyofdigitalandonlinesymptomcheckertoolsasystematicreview AT chancalvin thediagnosticandtriageaccuracyofdigitalandonlinesymptomcheckertoolsasystematicreview AT chidambaramswathikan thediagnosticandtriageaccuracyofdigitalandonlinesymptomcheckertoolsasystematicreview AT hannalydia thediagnosticandtriageaccuracyofdigitalandonlinesymptomcheckertoolsasystematicreview AT iqbalfahadmujtaba thediagnosticandtriageaccuracyofdigitalandonlinesymptomcheckertoolsasystematicreview AT acharyaamish thediagnosticandtriageaccuracyofdigitalandonlinesymptomcheckertoolsasystematicreview AT normahanipasha thediagnosticandtriageaccuracyofdigitalandonlinesymptomcheckertoolsasystematicreview AT ashrafianhutan thediagnosticandtriageaccuracyofdigitalandonlinesymptomcheckertoolsasystematicreview AT markarsherazr thediagnosticandtriageaccuracyofdigitalandonlinesymptomcheckertoolsasystematicreview AT sounderajahviknesh thediagnosticandtriageaccuracyofdigitalandonlinesymptomcheckertoolsasystematicreview AT darziara thediagnosticandtriageaccuracyofdigitalandonlinesymptomcheckertoolsasystematicreview AT wallacewilliam diagnosticandtriageaccuracyofdigitalandonlinesymptomcheckertoolsasystematicreview AT chancalvin diagnosticandtriageaccuracyofdigitalandonlinesymptomcheckertoolsasystematicreview AT chidambaramswathikan diagnosticandtriageaccuracyofdigitalandonlinesymptomcheckertoolsasystematicreview AT hannalydia diagnosticandtriageaccuracyofdigitalandonlinesymptomcheckertoolsasystematicreview AT iqbalfahadmujtaba diagnosticandtriageaccuracyofdigitalandonlinesymptomcheckertoolsasystematicreview AT acharyaamish diagnosticandtriageaccuracyofdigitalandonlinesymptomcheckertoolsasystematicreview AT normahanipasha diagnosticandtriageaccuracyofdigitalandonlinesymptomcheckertoolsasystematicreview AT ashrafianhutan diagnosticandtriageaccuracyofdigitalandonlinesymptomcheckertoolsasystematicreview AT markarsherazr diagnosticandtriageaccuracyofdigitalandonlinesymptomcheckertoolsasystematicreview AT sounderajahviknesh diagnosticandtriageaccuracyofdigitalandonlinesymptomcheckertoolsasystematicreview AT darziara diagnosticandtriageaccuracyofdigitalandonlinesymptomcheckertoolsasystematicreview |