Publications

BibTex format

@unpublished{Wallace:2022:10.1101/2021.12.21.21268167,
author = {Wallace, W and Chan, C and Chidambaram, S and Hanna, L and Iqbal, FM and Acharya, A and Normahani, P and Ashrafian, H and Markar, S and Sounderajah, V and Darzi, A},
doi = {10.1101/2021.12.21.21268167},
publisher = {MedArxiv},
title = {The diagnostic and triage accuracy of digital and online symptom checker tools: a systematic review},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/2021.12.21.21268167},
year = {2022}
}

Download

RIS format (EndNote, RefMan)

TY  - UNPB
AB  - <h4>ABSTRACT</h4> <h4>Objective</h4> To evaluate the accuracy of digital and online symptom checkers in providing diagnoses and appropriate triage advice. <h4>Design</h4> Systematic review. <h4>Data sources</h4> Medline and Web of Science were searched up to 15 February 2021. <h4>Eligibility criteria for study selection</h4> Prospective and retrospective cohort, vignette, or audit studies that utilised an online or application-based service designed to input symptoms and biodata in order to generate diagnoses, health advice and direct patients to appropriate services were included. <h4>Main outcome measures</h4> The primary outcomes were (1) the accuracy of symptom checkers for providing the correct diagnosis and (2) the accuracy of subsequent triage advice given. <h4>Data extraction and synthesis</h4> Data extraction and quality assessment (using the QUADAS-2 tool) were performed by two independent reviewers. Owing to heterogeneity of the studies, meta-analysis was not possible. A narrative synthesis of the included studies and pre-specified outcomes was completed. <h4>Results</h4> Of the 177 studies retrieved, nine cohort studies and one cross-sectional study met the inclusion criteria. Symptom checkers evaluated a variety of medical conditions including ophthalmological conditions, inflammatory arthritides and HIV. 50% of the studies recruited real patients, while the remainder used simulated cases. The diagnostic accuracy of the primary diagnosis was low (range: 19% to 36%) and varied between individual symptom checkers, despite consistent symptom data input. Triage accuracy (range: 48.8% to 90.1%) was typically higher than diagnostic accuracy. Of note, one study found that 78.6% of emergency ophthalmic cases were under-triaged. <h4>Conclusions</h4> The diagnostic and triage accuracy of symptom checkers are variable and of low accuracy. Given the increasin
AU  - Wallace,W
AU  - Chan,C
AU  - Chidambaram,S
AU  - Hanna,L
AU  - Iqbal,FM
AU  - Acharya,A
AU  - Normahani,P
AU  - Ashrafian,H
AU  - Markar,S
AU  - Sounderajah,V
AU  - Darzi,A
DO  - 10.1101/2021.12.21.21268167
PB  - MedArxiv
PY  - 2022///
TI  - The diagnostic and triage accuracy of digital and online symptom checker tools: a systematic review
UR  - http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/2021.12.21.21268167
UR  - https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.21.21268167v1
UR  - http://hdl.handle.net/10044/1/98653
ER  -

Download

DrHutanAshrafian

Contact

Location

Summary

Citation

BibTex format

RIS format (EndNote, RefMan)