Triage Accuracy of Symptom Checker Apps: 5-Year Follow-up Evaluation.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Symptom checkers are digital tools assisting laypersons in self-assessing the urgency and potential causes of their medical complaints. They are widely used but face concerns from both patients and health care professionals, especially regarding their accuracy. A 2015 landmark study substantiated these concerns using case vignettes to demonstrate that symptom checkers commonly err in their triage assessment.Objective
This study aims to revisit the landmark index study to investigate whether and how symptom checkers' capabilities have evolved since 2015 and how they currently compare with laypersons' stand-alone triage appraisal.Methods
In early 2020, we searched for smartphone and web-based applications providing triage advice. We evaluated these apps on the same 45 case vignettes as the index study. Using descriptive statistics, we compared our findings with those of the index study and with publicly available data on laypersons' triage capability.Results
We retrieved 22 symptom checkers providing triage advice. The median triage accuracy in 2020 (55.8%, IQR 15.1%) was close to that in 2015 (59.1%, IQR 15.5%). The apps in 2020 were less risk averse (odds 1.11:1, the ratio of overtriage errors to undertriage errors) than those in 2015 (odds 2.82:1), missing >40% of emergencies. Few apps outperformed laypersons in either deciding whether emergency care was required or whether self-care was sufficient. No apps outperformed the laypersons on both decisions.Conclusions
Triage performance of symptom checkers has, on average, not improved over the course of 5 years. It decreased in 2 use cases (advice on when emergency care is required and when no health care is needed for the moment). However, triage capability varies widely within the sample of symptom checkers. Whether it is beneficial to seek advice from symptom checkers depends on the app chosen and on the specific question to be answered. Future research should develop resources (eg, case vignette repositories) to audit the capabilities of symptom checkers continuously and independently and provide guidance on when and to whom they should be recommended.
SUBMITTER: Schmieding ML
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9131144 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundSymptom checkers are clinical decision support apps for patients, used by tens of millions of people annually. They are designed to provide diagnostic and triage advice and assist users in seeking the appropriate level of care. Little evidence is available regarding their diagnostic and triage accuracy with direct use by patients for urgent conditions.ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to determine the diagnostic and triage accuracy and usability of a symptom checker in use by patients presenting to an emergency department (ED).MethodsWe recruited a convenience sample of English-speaking patients presenting for care in an urban ED. Each consenting patient used a leading symptom checker from Ada Health before the ED evaluation. Diagnostic accuracy was evaluated by comparing the symptom checker's diagnoses and those of 3 independent emergency physicians viewing the patient-entered symptom data, with the final diagnoses from the ED evaluation. The Ada diagnoses and triage were also critiqued by the independent physicians. The patients completed a usability survey based on the Technology Acceptance Model.ResultsA total of 40 (80%) of the 50 participants approached completed the symptom checker assessment and usability survey. Their mean age was 39.3 (SD 15.9; range 18-76) years, and they were 65% (26/40) female, 68% (27/40) White, 48% (19/40) Hispanic or Latino, and 13% (5/40) Black or African American. Some cases had missing data or a lack of a clear ED diagnosis; 75% (30/40) were included in the analysis of diagnosis, and 93% (37/40) for triage. The sensitivity for at least one of the final ED diagnoses by Ada (based on its top 5 diagnoses) was 70% (95% CI 54%-86%), close to the mean sensitivity for the 3 physicians (on their top 3 diagnoses) of 68.9%. The physicians rated the Ada triage decisions as 62% (23/37) fully agree and 24% (9/37) safe but too cautious. It was rated as unsafe and too risky in 22% (8/37) of cases by at least one physician, in 14% (5/37) of cases by at least two physicians, and in 5% (2/37) of cases by all 3 physicians. Usability was rated highly; participants agreed or strongly agreed with the 7 Technology Acceptance Model usability questions with a mean score of 84.6%, although "satisfaction" and "enjoyment" were rated low.ConclusionsThis study provides preliminary evidence that a symptom checker can provide acceptable usability and diagnostic accuracy for patients with various urgent conditions. A total of 14% (5/37) of symptom checker triage recommendations were deemed unsafe and too risky by at least two physicians based on the symptoms recorded, similar to the results of studies on telephone and nurse triage. Larger studies are needed of diagnosis and triage performance with direct patient use in different clinical environments.
| S-EPMC9531004 | biostudies-literature
Project 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.
| S-EPMC9385087 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundComputerized algorithms known as symptom checkers aim to help patients decide what to do should they have a new medical concern. However, despite widespread implementation, most studies on symptom checkers have involved simulated patients. Only limited evidence currently exists about symptom checker safety or accuracy when used by real patients. We developed a new prototype symptom checker and assessed its safety and accuracy in a prospective cohort of patients presenting to primary care and emergency departments with new medical concerns.MethodA prospective cohort study was done to assess the prototype's performance. The cohort consisted of adult patients (≥16 years old) who presented to hospital emergency departments and family physician clinics. Primary outcomes were safety and accuracy of triage recommendations to seek hospital care, seek primary care, or manage symptoms at home.ResultsData from 281 hospital patients and 300 clinic patients were collected and analyzed. Sensitivity to emergencies was 100% (10/10 encounters). Sensitivity to urgencies was 90% (73/81) and 97% (34/35) for hospital and primary care patients, respectively. The prototype was significantly more accurate than patients at triage (73% versus 58%, p<0.01). Compliance with triage recommendations in this cohort using this iteration of the symptom checker would have reduced hospital visits by 55% but cause potential harm in 2-3% from delay in care.InterpretationThe prototype symptom checker was superior to patients in deciding the most appropriate treatment setting for medical issues. This symptom checker could reduce a significant number of unnecessary hospital visits, with accuracy and safety outcomes comparable to existing data on telephone triage.
| S-EPMC8635379 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceBecause more patients are presenting with self-guided research of symptoms, it is important to assess the capabilities and limitations of these available health information tools.ObjectiveTo determine the accuracy of the most popular online symptom checker for ophthalmic diagnoses.Design, setting, and participantsIn a cross-sectional study, 42 validated clinical vignettes of ophthalmic symptoms were generated and distilled to their core presenting symptoms. Cases were entered into WebMD symptom checker by both medically trained and nonmedically trained personnel blinded to the diagnosis. Output from the symptom checker, including the number of symptoms, ranking and list of diagnoses, and triage urgency were recorded. The study was conducted on October 13, 2017. Analysis was performed between October 15, 2017, and April 30, 2018.Main outcomes and measuresAccuracy of the top 3 diagnoses generated by the online symptom checker.ResultsThe mean (SD) number of symptoms entered was 3.6 (1.6) (range, 1-8). The median (SD) number of diagnoses generated by the symptom checker was 26.8 (21.8) (range, 1-99). The primary diagnosis by the symptom checker was correct in 11 of 42 (26%; 95% CI, 12%-40%) cases. The correct diagnosis was included in the online symptom checker's top 3 diagnoses in 16 of 42 (38%; 95% CI, 25%-56%) cases. The correct diagnosis was not included in the symptom checker's list in 18 of 42 (43%; 95% CI, 32%-63%) cases. Triage urgency based on the top diagnosis was appropriate in 7 of 18 (39%; 95% CI, 14%-64%) emergent cases and 21 of 24 (88%; 95% CI, 73%-100%) nonemergent cases. Interuser variability for the correct diagnosis being in the top 3 listed was at least moderate (Cohen κ = 0.74; 95% CI, 0.54-0.95).Conclusions and relevanceThe most popular online symptom checker may arrive at the correct clinical diagnosis for ophthalmic conditions, but a substantial proportion of diagnoses may not be captured. These findings suggest that further research to reflect the real-life application of internet diagnostic resources is required.
| S-EPMC6567837 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundConsumer-oriented mobile self-diagnosis apps have been developed using undisclosed algorithms, presumably based on machine learning and other artificial intelligence (AI) technologies. The US Food and Drug Administration now discerns apps with learning AI algorithms from those with stable ones and treats the former as medical devices. To the author's knowledge, no self-diagnosis app testing has been performed in the field of ophthalmology so far.ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to test apps that were previously mentioned in the scientific literature on a set of diagnoses in a deliberate time interval, comparing the results and looking for differences that hint at "nonlocked" learning algorithms.MethodsFour apps from the literature were chosen (Ada, Babylon, Buoy, and Your.MD). A set of three ophthalmology diagnoses (glaucoma, retinal tear, dry eye syndrome) representing three levels of urgency was used to simultaneously test the apps' diagnostic efficiency and treatment recommendations in this specialty. Two years was the chosen time interval between the tests (2018 and 2020). Scores were awarded by one evaluating physician using a defined scheme.ResultsTwo apps (Ada and Your.MD) received significantly higher scores than the other two. All apps either worsened in their results between 2018 and 2020 or remained unchanged at a low level. The variation in the results over time indicates "nonlocked" learning algorithms using AI technologies. None of the apps provided correct diagnoses and treatment recommendations for all three diagnoses in 2020. Two apps (Babylon and Your.MD) asked significantly fewer questions than the other two (P<.001).Conclusions"Nonlocked" algorithms are used by self-diagnosis apps. The diagnostic efficiency of the tested apps seems to worsen over time, with some apps being more capable than others. Systematic studies on a wider scale are necessary for health care providers and patients to correctly assess the safety and efficacy of such apps and for correct classification by health care regulating authorities.
| S-EPMC7748958 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Symptom checkers are increasingly used to assess new symptoms and navigate the health care system. The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of an artificial intelligence (AI)-based symptom checker (Ada) and physicians regarding the presence/absence of an inflammatory rheumatic disease (IRD). In this survey study, German-speaking physicians with prior rheumatology working experience were asked to determine IRD presence/absence and suggest diagnoses for 20 different real-world patient vignettes, which included only basic health and symptom-related medical history. IRD detection rate and suggested diagnoses of participants and Ada were compared to the gold standard, the final rheumatologists' diagnosis, reported on the discharge summary report. A total of 132 vignettes were completed by 33 physicians (mean rheumatology working experience 8.8 (SD 7.1) years). Ada's diagnostic accuracy (IRD) was significantly higher compared to physicians (70 vs 54%, p = 0.002) according to top diagnosis. Ada listed the correct diagnosis more often compared to physicians (54 vs 32%, p < 0.001) as top diagnosis as well as among the top 3 diagnoses (59 vs 42%, p < 0.001). Work experience was not related to suggesting the correct diagnosis or IRD status. Confined to basic health and symptom-related medical history, the diagnostic accuracy of physicians was lower compared to an AI-based symptom checker. These results highlight the potential of using symptom checkers early during the patient journey and importance of access to complete and sufficient patient information to establish a correct diagnosis.
| S-EPMC9548469 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSymptom checker apps (SCAs) are mobile or online applications for lay people that usually have two main functions: symptom analysis and recommendations. SCAs ask users questions about their symptoms via a chatbot, give a list with possible causes, and provide a recommendation, such as seeing a physician. However, it is unclear whether the actual performance of a SCA corresponds to the users' experiences. This qualitative study investigates the subjective perspectives of SCA users to close the empirical gap identified in the literature and answers the following main research question: How do individuals (healthy users and patients) experience the usage of SCA, including their attitudes, expectations, motivations, and concerns regarding their SCA use?MethodsA qualitative interview study was chosen to clarify the relatively unknown experience of SCA use. Semi-structured qualitative interviews with SCA users were carried out by two researchers in tandem via video call. Qualitative content analysis was selected as methodology for the data analysis.ResultsFifteen interviews with SCA users were conducted and seven main categories identified: (1) Attitudes towards findings and recommendations, (2) Communication, (3) Contact with physicians, (4) Expectations (prior to use), (5) Motivations, (6) Risks, and (7) SCA-use for others.ConclusionsThe aspects identified in the analysis emphasise the specific perspective of SCA users and, at the same time, the immense scope of different experiences. Moreover, the study reveals ethical issues, such as relational aspects, that are often overlooked in debates on mHealth. Both empirical and ethical research is more needed, as the awareness of the subjective experience of those affected is an essential component in the responsible development and implementation of health apps such as SCA.Trial registrationGerman Clinical Trials Register (DRKS): DRKS00022465. 07/08/2020.
| S-EPMC10874001 | biostudies-literature
Project description:It is currently unknown which attitude-based profiles are associated with symptom checker use for self-triage. We sought to identify, among university students, attitude-based latent classes (population profiles) and the association between latent classes with the future use of symptom checkers for self-triage. Informed by the Technology Acceptance Model and a larger mixed methods study, a cross-sectional survey was developed and administered to students (aged between 18 and 34 years of age) at a University in Ontario. Latent class analysis (LCA) was used to identify attitude-based profiles that exist among the sample while general linear modeling was applied to identify the association between latent classes and future symptom checker use for self-triage. Of the 1,547 students who opened the survey link, 1,365 did not use a symptom checker in the past year and were thus identified as “non-users”. After removing missing data (remaining sample = n = 1,305), LCA revealed five attitude-based profiles: tech acceptors, tech rejectors, skeptics, tech seekers, and unsure acceptors. Tech acceptors and tech rejectors were the most and least prevalent classes, respectively. As compared to tech rejectors, tech seekers and unsure acceptors were the latent classes with the highest and lowest odds of future symptom checker use, respectively. After controlling for confounders, the effect of latent classes on symptom checker use remains significant (p-value < .0001) with the odds of future use in tech acceptors being 5.6 times higher than the odds of future symptom checker use in tech rejectors [CI: (3.458, 9.078); p-value < .0001]. Attitudes towards AI and symptom checker functionality result in different population profiles that have different odds of using symptom checkers for self-triage. Identifying a person’s or group’s membership to a population profile could help in developing and delivering tailored interventions aimed at maximizing use of validated symptom checkers.
| S-EPMC8565791 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundArtificial intelligence (AI)-driven symptom checkers are available to millions of users globally and are advocated as a tool to deliver health care more efficiently. To achieve the promoted benefits of a symptom checker, laypeople must trust and subsequently follow its instructions. In AI, explanations are seen as a tool to communicate the rationale behind black-box decisions to encourage trust and adoption. However, the effectiveness of the types of explanations used in AI-driven symptom checkers has not yet been studied. Explanations can follow many forms, including why-explanations and how-explanations. Social theories suggest that why-explanations are better at communicating knowledge and cultivating trust among laypeople.ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to ascertain whether explanations provided by a symptom checker affect explanatory trust among laypeople and whether this trust is impacted by their existing knowledge of disease.MethodsA cross-sectional survey of 750 healthy participants was conducted. The participants were shown a video of a chatbot simulation that resulted in the diagnosis of either a migraine or temporal arteritis, chosen for their differing levels of epidemiological prevalence. These diagnoses were accompanied by one of four types of explanations. Each explanation type was selected either because of its current use in symptom checkers or because it was informed by theories of contrastive explanation. Exploratory factor analysis of participants' responses followed by comparison-of-means tests were used to evaluate group differences in trust.ResultsDepending on the treatment group, two or three variables were generated, reflecting the prior knowledge and subsequent mental model that the participants held. When varying explanation type by disease, migraine was found to be nonsignificant (P=.65) and temporal arteritis, marginally significant (P=.09). Varying disease by explanation type resulted in statistical significance for input influence (P=.001), social proof (P=.049), and no explanation (P=.006), with counterfactual explanation (P=.053). The results suggest that trust in explanations is significantly affected by the disease being explained. When laypeople have existing knowledge of a disease, explanations have little impact on trust. Where the need for information is greater, different explanation types engender significantly different levels of trust. These results indicate that to be successful, symptom checkers need to tailor explanations to each user's specific question and discount the diseases that they may also be aware of.ConclusionsSystem builders developing explanations for symptom-checking apps should consider the recipient's knowledge of a disease and tailor explanations to each user's specific need. Effort should be placed on generating explanations that are personalized to each user of a symptom checker to fully discount the diseases that they may be aware of and to close their information gap.
| S-EPMC8600426 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Sarcoidosis + Follow-up 6 month after Keywords = sarcoidosis Keywords = follow-up Keywords: other
2005-01-18 | GSE1907 | GEO