Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33688845›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2021

Benchmarking Triage Capability of Symptom Checkers Against That of Medical Laypersons: Survey Study.

Malte L Schmieding, Rudolf Mörgeli, Maike A L Schmieding, Markus A Feufel, Felix Balzer

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 31 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Malte L SchmiedingDepartment of Anesthesiology and Operative Intensive Care, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-5844-7791
Rudolf MörgeliDepartment of Anesthesiology and Operative Intensive Care, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-8506-5898
Maike A L SchmiedingDepartment of Biology, Chemistry, and Pharmacy, Institute of Pharmacy, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-3870-5722
Markus A Feufel *Department of Psychology and Ergonomics (IPA), Division of Ergonomics, Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-0563-8831
Felix Balzer *Department of Anesthesiology and Operative Intensive Care, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-1575-2056

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSymptom checkers (SCs) are tools developed to provide clinical decision support to laypersons. Apart from suggesting probable diagnoses, they commonly advise when users should seek care (triage advice). SCs have become increasingly popular despite prior studies rating their performance as mediocre. To date, it is unclear whether SCs can triage better than those who might choose to use them.

objectiveThis study aims to compare triage accuracy between SCs and their potential users (ie, laypersons).

methodsOn Amazon Mechanical Turk, we recruited 91 adults from the United States who had no professional medical background. In a web-based survey, the participants evaluated 45 fictitious clinical case vignettes. Data for 15 SCs that had processed the same vignettes were obtained from a previous study. As main outcome measures, we assessed the accuracy of the triage assessments made by participants and SCs for each of the three triage levels (ie, emergency care, nonemergency care, self-care) and overall, the proportion of participants outperforming each SC in terms of accuracy, and the risk aversion of participants and SCs by comparing the proportion of cases that were overtriaged.

resultsThe mean overall triage accuracy was similar for participants (60.9%, SD 6.8%; 95% CI 59.5%-62.3%) and SCs (58%, SD 12.8%). Most participants outperformed all but 5 SCs. On average, SCs more reliably detected emergencies (80.6%, SD 17.9%) than laypersons did (67.5%, SD 16.4%; 95% CI 64.1%-70.8%). Although both SCs and participants struggled with cases requiring self-care (the least urgent triage category), SCs more often wrongly classified these cases as emergencies (43/174, 24.7%) compared with laypersons (56/1365, 4.10%).

conclusionsMost SCs had no greater triage capability than an average layperson, although the triage accuracy of the five best SCs was superior to the accuracy of most participants. SCs might improve early detection of emergencies but might also needlessly increase resource utilization in health care. Laypersons sometimes require support in deciding when to rely on self-care but it is in that very situation where SCs perform the worst. Further research is needed to determine how to best combine the strengths of humans and SCs.

Indexed as

Emergency Medical ServicesTriageAdultBenchmarkingHumansSelf CareSurveys and Questionnairesclinicalconsumer health informationdecision support systemsdigital healtheHealth appshealth literacymobile phonepatient-centered caresymptom checkertriage

Identifiers

PMID33688845
PMCPMC7991983

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.