4
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares

      Submit your digital health research with an established publisher
      - celebrating 25 years of open access

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Triage Accuracy of Symptom Checker Apps: 5-Year Follow-up Evaluation

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          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.

          Related collections

          Most cited references48

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Welcome to the Tidyverse

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Comparison of vignettes, standardized patients, and chart abstraction: a prospective validation study of 3 methods for measuring quality.

            Better health care quality is a universal goal, yet measuring quality has proven to be difficult and problematic. A central problem has been isolating physician practices from other effects of the health care system. To validate clinical vignettes as a method for measuring the competence of physicians and the quality of their actual practice. Prospective trial conducted in 1997 comparing 3 methods for measuring the quality of care for 4 common outpatient conditions: (1) structured reports by standardized patients (SPs), trained actors who presented unannounced to physicians' clinics (the gold standard); (2) abstraction of medical records for those same visits; and (3) physicians' responses to clinical vignettes that exactly corresponded to the SPs' presentations. Setting Outpatient primary care clinics at 2 Veterans Affairs medical centers. Ninety-eight (97%) of 101 general internal medicine staff physicians, faculty, and second- and third-year residents consented to be randomized for the study. From this group, 10 physicians at each site were randomly selected for inclusion. A total of 160 quality scores (8 cases x 20 physicians) were generated for each method using identical explicit criteria based on national guidelines and local expert panels. Scores were defined as the percentage of process criteria correctly met and were compared among the 3 methods. The quality of care, as measured by all 3 methods, ranged from 76.2% (SPs) to 71.0% (vignettes) to 65.6% (chart abstraction). Measuring quality using vignettes consistently produced scores closer to the gold standard of SP scores than using chart abstraction. This pattern was robust when the scores were disaggregated by the 4 conditions (P<.001 to <.05), by case complexity (P<.001), by site (P<.001), and by level of physician training (P values from <.001 to <.05). The pattern persisted, although less dominantly, when we assessed the component domains of the clinical encounter--history, physical examination, diagnosis, and treatment. Vignettes were responsive to expected directions of variation in quality between sites and levels of training. The vignette responses did not appear to be sensitive to physicians' having seen an SP presenting with the same case. Our data indicate that quality of health care can be measured in an outpatient setting by using clinical vignettes. Vignettes appear to be a valid and comprehensive method that directly focuses on the process of care provided in actual clinical practice. Vignettes show promise as an inexpensive case-mix adjusted method for measuring the quality of care provided by a group of physicians.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Evaluation of symptom checkers for self diagnosis and triage: audit study

              Objective To determine the diagnostic and triage accuracy of online symptom checkers (tools that use computer algorithms to help patients with self diagnosis or self triage). Design Audit study. Setting Publicly available, free symptom checkers. Participants 23 symptom checkers that were in English and provided advice across a range of conditions. 45 standardized patient vignettes were compiled and equally divided into three categories of triage urgency: emergent care required (for example, pulmonary embolism), non-emergent care reasonable (for example, otitis media), and self care reasonable (for example, viral upper respiratory tract infection). Main outcome measures For symptom checkers that provided a diagnosis, our main outcomes were whether the symptom checker listed the correct diagnosis first or within the first 20 potential diagnoses (n=770 standardized patient evaluations). For symptom checkers that provided a triage recommendation, our main outcomes were whether the symptom checker correctly recommended emergent care, non-emergent care, or self care (n=532 standardized patient evaluations). Results The 23 symptom checkers provided the correct diagnosis first in 34% (95% confidence interval 31% to 37%) of standardized patient evaluations, listed the correct diagnosis within the top 20 diagnoses given in 58% (55% to 62%) of standardized patient evaluations, and provided the appropriate triage advice in 57% (52% to 61%) of standardized patient evaluations. Triage performance varied by urgency of condition, with appropriate triage advice provided in 80% (95% confidence interval 75% to 86%) of emergent cases, 55% (47% to 63%) of non-emergent cases, and 33% (26% to 40%) of self care cases (P<0.001). Performance on appropriate triage advice across the 23 individual symptom checkers ranged from 33% (95% confidence interval 19% to 48%) to 78% (64% to 91%) of standardized patient evaluations. Conclusions Symptom checkers had deficits in both triage and diagnosis. Triage advice from symptom checkers is generally risk averse, encouraging users to seek care for conditions where self care is reasonable.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                J Med Internet Res
                J Med Internet Res
                JMIR
                Journal of Medical Internet Research
                JMIR Publications (Toronto, Canada )
                1439-4456
                1438-8871
                May 2022
                10 May 2022
                : 24
                : 5
                : e31810
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Institute of Medical Informatics Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin Berlin Germany
                [2 ] Cognitive Psychology and Ergonomics Department of Psychology and Ergonomics Technische Universität Berlin Berlin Germany
                [3 ] Institute of General Practice and Family Medicine Jena University Hospital, Germany Jena Germany
                [4 ] Institute of General Practice and Family Medicine Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin Berlin Germany
                [5 ] Division of Ergonomics Department of Psychology and Ergonomics Technische Universität Berlin Berlin Germany
                Author notes
                Corresponding Author: Malte L Schmieding malte.schmieding@ 123456charite.de
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5844-7791
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3848-1471
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5879-0664
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2723-1998
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1575-2056
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0563-8831
                Article
                v24i5e31810
                10.2196/31810
                9131144
                35536633
                1645d936-53b9-4745-a3e2-d0b5322ae9c7
                ©Malte L Schmieding, Marvin Kopka, Konrad Schmidt, Sven Schulz-Niethammer, Felix Balzer, Markus A Feufel. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 10.05.2022.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://www.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.

                History
                : 7 July 2021
                : 7 August 2021
                : 19 November 2021
                : 30 January 2022
                Categories
                Original Paper
                Original Paper

                Medicine
                digital health,triage,symptom checker,patient-centered care,ehealth apps,mobile phone
                Medicine
                digital health, triage, symptom checker, patient-centered care, ehealth apps, mobile phone

                Comments

                Comment on this article