ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2021
Benchmarking Triage Capability of Symptom Checkers Against That of Medical Laypersons: Survey Study.
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.
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
31 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Triage and Diagnostic Accuracy of Online Symptom Checkers: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Pooled it
- Comparison of Two Symptom Checkers (Ada and Symptoma) in the Emergency Department: Randomized, Crossover, Head-to-Head, Double-Blinded Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Trial
- Interactive Versus Static Decision Support Tools for COVID-19: Randomized Controlled Trial.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2022Trial
- Patient's Perception of Digital Symptom Assessment Technologies in Rheumatology: Results From a Multicentre Study.Frontiers in public health · 2022Trial
- Evaluating digital triage symptom checker with historical triage-related adverse events.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2026Article
- Economic evaluation of a digital symptom checker for endometriosis using a Markov decision process model.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Advancing medical AI through benchmarking and competition for specialty triage.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Accuracy of online symptom assessment applications, large language models, and laypeople for self-triage decisions.NPJ digital medicine · 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
- Technology-supported self-triage decision making.npj health systems · 2025Article
- The RepVig framework for designing use-case specific representative vignettes and evaluating triage accuracy of laypeople and symptom assessment applications.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Unveiling Usage Patterns and Explaining Usage of Symptom Checker Apps: Explorative Longitudinal Mixed Methods Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Article
- The Doctors, Their Patients, and the Symptom Checker App: Qualitative Interview Study With General Practitioners in Germany.JMIR human factors · 2024Article
- Triage Accuracy and the Safety of User-Initiated Symptom Assessment With an Electronic Symptom Checker in a Real-Life Setting: Instrument Validation Study.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
- Statistical refinement of patient-centered case vignettes for digital health research.Frontiers in digital health · 2024Article
- Redesigning Primary Care: The Emergence of Artificial-Intelligence-Driven Symptom Diagnostic Tools.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
- Impacts of Symptom Checkers for Laypersons' Self-diagnosis on Physicians in Primary Care: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Article
- Online Symptom Checkers: Recommendations for a Vignette-Based Clinical Evaluation Standard.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.