ArticleJMIR medical informatics2019
The Use of Artificially Intelligent Self-Diagnosing Digital Platforms by the General Public: Scoping Review.
Article in JMIR medical informatics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
33 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparisons of artificial intelligence automated segmentation techniques to manual segmentation techniques of the maxilla and maxillary sinus for CT or cone-beam CT scans-a systematic review.Dento maxillo facial radiology · 2025Pooled it
- Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI)-Assisted Self-Diagnosis and the Patient-Physician Relationship: Mixed Methods Study of Calibration, Participation, and Trust.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Divergent impacts of explainable AI for dermatological diagnosis on clinicians versus lay people.Nature medicine · 2026Article
- Dissecting medical referrals in health services: role of physician professional networks.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Digital Self-Diagnosis Tools: A Narrative Overview of Reviews.Mayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health · 2025Review
- Improving Safety, Efficiency, Cost, and Satisfaction Across a Musculoskeletal Pathway Using the Digital Assessment Routing Tool for Triage: Quality Improvement Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Patient Self-Diagnosis: Physician Engagement Tools to Compete With TikTok.Focus (American Psychiatric Publishing) · 2025Article
- Exploring Laypersons' Experiences With a Mobile Symptom Checker App as an Interface Between eHealth Literacy, Health Literacy, and Health-Related Behavior: Qualitative Interview Study.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- How Patients With Cancer Use the Internet to Search for Health Information: Scenario-Based Think-Aloud Study.JMIR infodemiology · 2025Article
- The Doctors, Their Patients, and the Symptom Checker App: Qualitative Interview Study With General Practitioners in Germany.JMIR human factors · 2024Article
- Article
- Only the anxious ones? Identifying characteristics of symptom checker app users: a cross-sectional survey.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2024Article
- Bridging evidence-to-care gaps with mHealth: Designing a symptom checker for parents accessing knowledge translation resources on acute children's illnesses in a smartphone application.PEC innovation · 2023Article
- The Potential of ChatGPT as a Self-Diagnostic Tool in Common Orthopedic Diseases: Exploratory Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Article
- Impacts of Symptom Checkers for Laypersons' Self-diagnosis on Physicians in Primary Care: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Article
- Burden of Neurological Diseases in the Philippines as Revealed by Web Searches: An Infodemiological Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Assessing data gathering of chatbot based symptom checkers - a clinical vignettes study.International journal of medical informatics · 2022Article
- Hurdles to developing and scaling remote patients' health management tools and systems: a scoping review.Systematic reviews · 2022Article
- Health Information Seeking From an Intelligent Web-Based Symptom Checker: Cross-sectional Questionnaire Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Article
- Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications of Symptom Checker Apps in Primary Health Care (CHECK.APP): Protocol for an Interdisciplinary Mixed Methods Study.JMIR research protocols · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSelf-diagnosis is the process of diagnosing or identifying a medical condition in oneself. Artificially intelligent digital platforms for self-diagnosis are becoming widely available and are used by the general public; however, little is known about the body of knowledge surrounding this technology.
objectiveThe objectives of this scoping review were to (1) systematically map the extent and nature of the literature and topic areas pertaining to digital platforms that use computerized algorithms to provide users with a list of potential diagnoses and (2) identify key knowledge gaps.
methodsThe following databases were searched: PubMed (Medline), Scopus, Association for Computing Machinery Digital Library, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Google Scholar, Open Grey, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. The search strategy was developed and refined with the assistance of a librarian and consisted of 3 main concepts: (1) self-diagnosis; (2) digital platforms; and (3) public or patients. The search generated 2536 articles from which 217 were duplicates. Following the Tricco et al 2018 checklist, 2 researchers screened the titles and abstracts (n=2316) and full texts (n=104), independently. A total of 19 articles were included for review, and data were retrieved following a data-charting form that was pretested by the research team.
resultsThe included articles were mainly conducted in the United States (n=10) or the United Kingdom (n=4). Among the articles, topic areas included accuracy or correspondence with a doctor's diagnosis (n=6), commentaries (n=2), regulation (n=3), sociological (n=2), user experience (n=2), theoretical (n=1), privacy and security (n=1), ethical (n=1), and design (n=1). Individuals who do not have access to health care and perceive to have a stigmatizing condition are more likely to use this technology. The accuracy of this technology varied substantially based on the disease examined and platform used. Women and those with higher education were more likely to choose the right diagnosis out of the potential list of diagnoses. Regulation of this technology is lacking in most parts of the world; however, they are currently under development.
conclusionsThere are prominent research gaps in the literature surrounding the use of artificially intelligent self-diagnosing digital platforms. Given the variety of digital platforms and the wide array of diseases they cover, measuring accuracy is cumbersome. More research is needed to understand the user experience and inform regulations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.