Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31042151›Full record

ArticleJMIR medical informatics2019

The Use of Artificially Intelligent Self-Diagnosing Digital Platforms by the General Public: Scoping Review.

Stephanie Aboueid, Rebecca H Liu, Binyam Negussie Desta, Ashok Chaurasia, Shanil Ebrahim

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

33 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Burden of Neurological Diseases in the Philippines as Revealed by Web Searches: An Infodemiological Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Stephanie AboueidApplied Health Sciences, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8115-1940
Rebecca H LiuFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3946-4035
Binyam Negussie DestaApplied Health Sciences, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1814-7487
Ashok ChaurasiaApplied Health Sciences, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6745-0493
Shanil EbrahimFaculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9396-3321

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

artificial intelligencediagnosisdiagnostic self evaluationself-caresymptom checkers

Identifiers

PMID31042151
PMCPMC6658267

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.