122
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

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

      research-article

      Read this article at

      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

          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.

          Related collections

          Most cited references31

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

          Excessive antibiotic use for acute respiratory infections in the United States.

          Estimating the amount and cost of excess antibiotic use in ambulatory practice and identifying the conditions that account for most excess use are necessary to guide intervention and policy decisions. Data from the 1998 National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, a sample survey of United States ambulatory physician practices, was used to estimate primary care office visits and antibiotic prescription rates for acute respiratory infections. Weight-averaged antibiotic costs were calculated with use of 1996 prescription marketing data and adjusted for inflation. In 1998, an estimated 76 million primary care office visits for acute respiratory infections resulted in 41 million antibiotic prescriptions. Antibiotic prescriptions in excess of the number expected to treat bacterial infections amounted to 55% (22.6 million) of all antibiotics prescribed for acute respiratory infections, at a cost of approximately $726 million. Upper respiratory tract infections (not otherwise specified), pharyngitis, and bronchitis were the conditions associated with the greatest amount of excess use. This study documents that the amount and cost of excessive antibiotic use for acute respiratory infections by primary care physicians are substantial and establishes potential target rates for antibiotic treatment of selected conditions.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Information leaflet and antibiotic prescribing strategies for acute lower respiratory tract infection: a randomized controlled trial.

            Acute lower respiratory tract infection is the most common condition treated in primary care. Many physicians still prescribe antibiotics; however, systematic reviews of the use of antibiotics are small and have diverse conclusions. To estimate the effectiveness of 3 prescribing strategies and an information leaflet for acute lower respiratory tract infection. A randomized controlled trial conducted from August 18, 1998, to July 30, 2003, of 807 patients presenting in a primary care setting with acute uncomplicated lower respiratory tract infection. Patients were assigned to 1 of 6 groups by a factorial design: leaflet or no leaflet and 1 of 3 antibiotic groups (immediate antibiotics, no offer of antibiotics, and delayed antibiotics). Three strategies, immediate antibiotics (n = 262), a delayed antibiotic prescription (n = 272), and no offer of antibiotics (n = 273), were prescribed. Approximately half of each group received an information leaflet (129 for immediate antibiotics, 136 for delayed antibiotic prescription, and 140 for no antibiotics). Symptom duration and severity. A total of 562 patients (70%) returned complete diaries and 78 (10%) provided information about both symptom duration and severity. Cough rated at least "a slight problem" lasted a mean of 11.7 days (25% of patients had a cough lasting > or =17 days). An information leaflet had no effect on the main outcomes. Compared with no offer of antibiotics, other strategies did not alter cough duration (delayed, 0.75 days; 95% confidence intervals [CI], -0.37 to 1.88; immediate, 0.11 days; 95% CI, -1.01 to 1.24) or other primary outcomes. Compared with the immediate antibiotic group, slightly fewer patients in the delayed and control groups used antibiotics (96%, 20%, and 16%, respectively; P<.001), fewer patients were "very satisfied" (86%, 77%, and 72%, respectively; P = .005), and fewer patients believed in the effectiveness of antibiotics (75%, 40%, and 47%, respectively; P<.001). There were lower reattendances within a month with antibiotics (mean attendances for no antibiotics, 0.19; delayed, 0.12; and immediate, 0.11; P = .04) and higher attendance with a leaflet (mean attendances for no leaflet, 0.11; and leaflet, 0.17; P = .02). No offer or a delayed offer of antibiotics for acute uncomplicated lower respiratory tract infection is acceptable, associated with little difference in symptom resolution, and is likely to considerably reduce antibiotic use and beliefs in the effectiveness of antibiotics.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Physicians' diagnostic accuracy, confidence, and resource requests: a vignette study.

              Little is known about the relationship between physicians' diagnostic accuracy and their confidence in that accuracy.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: research assistant
                Role: associate professor
                Role: instructorRole: natural scientist
                Role: associate professor
                Journal
                BMJ
                BMJ
                bmj
                BMJ : British Medical Journal
                BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.
                0959-8138
                1756-1833
                2015
                8 July 2015
                : 351
                : h3480
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA
                [2 ]Division of General Medicine and Primary Care, Brigham and Women’s Hospital & Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
                [3 ] Division of Infectious Diseases, Boston Children’s Hospital, Boston, MA, USA
                [4 ]RAND Corporation, Boston, MA, USA
                [5 ]Division of General Internal Medicine and Primary Care, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA
                Author notes
                Correspondence to: A Mehrotra mehrotra@hcp.med.harvard.edu
                Article
                semh025489
                10.1136/bmj.h3480
                4496786
                26157077
                84010c8d-5350-40b9-8da9-b32d0956e816
                © Semigran et al 2015

                This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

                History
                : 15 June 2015
                Categories
                Research
                1779

                Medicine
                Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article