Cargando…

Accuracy of self-diagnosis in conditions commonly managed in primary care: diagnostic accuracy systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of self-diagnosis compared with a clinical diagnosis for common conditions in primary care. DESIGN: Systematic review. Meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and CINAHL from inception to 25...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: McLellan, Julie, Heneghan, Carl, Roberts, Nia, Pluddemann, Annette
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9835960/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36627158
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-065748
_version_ 1784868768142327808
author McLellan, Julie
Heneghan, Carl
Roberts, Nia
Pluddemann, Annette
author_facet McLellan, Julie
Heneghan, Carl
Roberts, Nia
Pluddemann, Annette
author_sort McLellan, Julie
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of self-diagnosis compared with a clinical diagnosis for common conditions in primary care. DESIGN: Systematic review. Meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and CINAHL from inception to 25 January 2021. STUDY SELECTION: Eligible studies were prospective or retrospective studies comparing the results of self-diagnosis of common conditions in primary care to a relevant clinical diagnosis or laboratory reference standard test performed by a healthcare service provider. Studies that considered self-testing only were excluded. DATA EXTRACTION: Two authors independently extracted data using a predefined data extraction form and assessed risk of bias using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2. METHODS AND RESULTS: 5047 records identified 18 studies for inclusion covering the self-diagnosis of three common conditions: vaginal infection (five studies), common skin conditions (four studies) and HIV (nine studies). No studies were found for any other condition. For self-diagnosis of vaginal infection and common skin conditions, meta-analysis was not appropriate and data were reported narratively. Nine studies, using point-of-care oral fluid tests, reported on the accuracy of self-diagnosis of HIV and data were pooled using bivariate meta-analysis methods. For these nine studies, the pooled sensitivity was 92.8% (95% CI, 86% to 96.5%) and specificity was 99.8% (95% CI, 99.1% to 99.9%). Post hoc, the robustness of the pooled findings was tested in a sensitivity analysis only including four studies using laboratory testing as the reference standard. The pooled sensitivity reduced to 87.7% (95% CI, 81.4% to 92.2%) and the specificity remained the same. The quality of all 18 included studies was assessed as mixed and overall study methodology was not always well described. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF KEY FINDINGS: Overall, there was a paucity of evidence. The current evidence does not support routine self-diagnosis for vaginal infections, common skin conditions and HIV in primary care. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018110288.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9835960
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-98359602023-01-13 Accuracy of self-diagnosis in conditions commonly managed in primary care: diagnostic accuracy systematic review and meta-analysis McLellan, Julie Heneghan, Carl Roberts, Nia Pluddemann, Annette BMJ Open General practice / Family practice OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of self-diagnosis compared with a clinical diagnosis for common conditions in primary care. DESIGN: Systematic review. Meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and CINAHL from inception to 25 January 2021. STUDY SELECTION: Eligible studies were prospective or retrospective studies comparing the results of self-diagnosis of common conditions in primary care to a relevant clinical diagnosis or laboratory reference standard test performed by a healthcare service provider. Studies that considered self-testing only were excluded. DATA EXTRACTION: Two authors independently extracted data using a predefined data extraction form and assessed risk of bias using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2. METHODS AND RESULTS: 5047 records identified 18 studies for inclusion covering the self-diagnosis of three common conditions: vaginal infection (five studies), common skin conditions (four studies) and HIV (nine studies). No studies were found for any other condition. For self-diagnosis of vaginal infection and common skin conditions, meta-analysis was not appropriate and data were reported narratively. Nine studies, using point-of-care oral fluid tests, reported on the accuracy of self-diagnosis of HIV and data were pooled using bivariate meta-analysis methods. For these nine studies, the pooled sensitivity was 92.8% (95% CI, 86% to 96.5%) and specificity was 99.8% (95% CI, 99.1% to 99.9%). Post hoc, the robustness of the pooled findings was tested in a sensitivity analysis only including four studies using laboratory testing as the reference standard. The pooled sensitivity reduced to 87.7% (95% CI, 81.4% to 92.2%) and the specificity remained the same. The quality of all 18 included studies was assessed as mixed and overall study methodology was not always well described. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF KEY FINDINGS: Overall, there was a paucity of evidence. The current evidence does not support routine self-diagnosis for vaginal infections, common skin conditions and HIV in primary care. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018110288. BMJ Publishing Group 2023-01-10 /pmc/articles/PMC9835960/ /pubmed/36627158 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-065748 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
spellingShingle General practice / Family practice
McLellan, Julie
Heneghan, Carl
Roberts, Nia
Pluddemann, Annette
Accuracy of self-diagnosis in conditions commonly managed in primary care: diagnostic accuracy systematic review and meta-analysis
title Accuracy of self-diagnosis in conditions commonly managed in primary care: diagnostic accuracy systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full Accuracy of self-diagnosis in conditions commonly managed in primary care: diagnostic accuracy systematic review and meta-analysis
title_fullStr Accuracy of self-diagnosis in conditions commonly managed in primary care: diagnostic accuracy systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Accuracy of self-diagnosis in conditions commonly managed in primary care: diagnostic accuracy systematic review and meta-analysis
title_short Accuracy of self-diagnosis in conditions commonly managed in primary care: diagnostic accuracy systematic review and meta-analysis
title_sort accuracy of self-diagnosis in conditions commonly managed in primary care: diagnostic accuracy systematic review and meta-analysis
topic General practice / Family practice
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9835960/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36627158
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-065748
work_keys_str_mv AT mclellanjulie accuracyofselfdiagnosisinconditionscommonlymanagedinprimarycarediagnosticaccuracysystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT heneghancarl accuracyofselfdiagnosisinconditionscommonlymanagedinprimarycarediagnosticaccuracysystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT robertsnia accuracyofselfdiagnosisinconditionscommonlymanagedinprimarycarediagnosticaccuracysystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT pluddemannannette accuracyofselfdiagnosisinconditionscommonlymanagedinprimarycarediagnosticaccuracysystematicreviewandmetaanalysis