Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33779741›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2021

Assessment of Diagnosis and Triage in Validated Case Vignettes Among Nonphysicians Before and After Internet Search.

David M Levine, Ateev Mehrotra

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
9.8field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. The Diagnostic and Triage Accuracy of the GPT-3 Artificial Intelligence Model.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2023
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  18. Article
  19. 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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

David M LevineDivision of General Internal Medicine and Primary Care, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
Ateev MehrotraHarvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Brigham and Women's Hospital · USHarvard University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: When confronted with new medical symptoms, many people turn to the internet to understand why they are ill as well as whether and where they should get care. Such searches may be harmful because they may facilitate misdiagnosis and inappropriate triage. Objective: To empirically measure the association of an internet search for health information with diagnosis, triage, and anxiety by laypeople. Design, Setting, and Participants: This survey study used a nationally representative sample of US adults who were recruited through an online platform between April 1, 2019, and April 15, 2019. A total of 48 validated case vignettes of both common (eg, viral illness) and severe (eg, heart attack) conditions were used. Participants were asked to relay their diagnosis, triage, and anxiety regarding 1 of these cases before and after searching the internet for health information. Exposures: Short, validated case vignettes written at or below the sixth-grade reading level randomly assigned to participants. Main Outcomes and Measures: Correct diagnosis, correct triage, and flipping (changing) or anchoring (not changing) diagnosis and triage decisions were the main outcomes. Multivariable modeling was performed to identify patient factors associated with correct triage and diagnosis. Results: Of the 5000 participants, 2549 were female (51.0%), 3819 were White (76.4%), and the mean (SD) age was 45.0 (16.9) years. Mean internet search time was 12.1 (95% CI, 10.7-13.5) minutes per case. No difference in triage accuracy was found before and after search (74.5% vs 74.1%; difference, -0.4 [95% CI, -1.4 to 0.6]; P = .06), but improved diagnostic accuracy was found (49.8% vs 54.0%; difference, 4.2% [95% CI, 3.1%-5.3%]; P < .001). Most participants (4254 [85.1%]) were anchored on their diagnosis. Of the 14.9% of participants (n = 746) who flipped their diagnosis, 9.6% (n = 478) flipped from incorrect to correct and 5.4% (n = 268) flipped from correct to incorrect. The following groups had an increased rate of correct diagnosis: adults 40 years or older (eg, 40-49 years: 5.1 [95% CI, 0.8-9.4] percentage points better than those aged <30 years; P = .02), women (9.4 [95% CI, 6.8-12.0] percentage points better than men; P < .001), and those with perceived poor health status (16.3 [95% CI, 6.9-25.6] percentage points better than those with excellent status; P = .001) and with more than 2 chronic diseases (6.8 [95% CI, 1.5-12.1] percentage points better than those with 0 conditions; P = .01). Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that an internet search for health information was associated with small increases in diagnostic accuracy but not with triage accuracy.

Indexed as

Health StatusInternetAnxiety DisordersFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesTriage

Identifiers

PMID33779741
PMCPMC8008286
OpenAlexW3149925369

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.