ArticleJAMA network open2021
Assessment of Diagnosis and Triage in Validated Case Vignettes Among Nonphysicians Before and After Internet Search.
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.
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
19 citing papers in PubMed, 35 citations in OpenAlex.
- Consumer Understanding of Skin Concerns With an AI-Powered Informational Tool.JAMA dermatology · 2026Trial
- Evaluating digital triage symptom checker with historical triage-related adverse events.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2026Article
- Article
- Diagnosis and Triage Performance of Contemporary Large Language Models on Short Clinical Vignettes.Journal of medical systems · 2025Article
- [Internet resources on plantar fasciitis : German-language analysis of the information content of digital sourcess].Orthopadie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025Review
- Accuracy of online symptom assessment applications, large language models, and laypeople for self-triage decisions.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- A Multiparty Collaboration to Engage Diverse Populations in Community-Centered Artificial Intelligence Research.Mayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health · 2024Article
- Time to diagnosis for a rare disease: managing medical uncertainty. A qualitative study.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2024Article
- Disclosing the Risk Associated with Isolated REM Behavior Disorder: The Sleep Experts' Perspective.Movement disorders clinical practice · 2024Article
- Article
- At the Heart of Resilience: Empowering Women's Agency in Navigating Cardiovascular Disease.CJC open · 2024Review
- Comparison of Diagnostic and Triage Accuracy of Ada Health and WebMD Symptom Checkers, ChatGPT, and Physicians for Patients in an Emergency Department: Clinical Data Analysis Study.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2023Article
- User-Initiated Symptom Assessment With an Electronic Symptom Checker: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Validation Study.JMIR research protocols · 2023Article
- The Diagnostic and Triage Accuracy of the GPT-3 Artificial Intelligence Model.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2023Article
- Chief Complaints, Underlying Diagnoses, and Mortality in Adult, Non-trauma Emergency Department Visits: A Population-based, Multicenter Cohort Study.The western journal of emergency medicine · 2022Article
- Patients' self-triage for unscheduled urgent care: a preliminary study on the accuracy and factors affecting the performance of a Belgian self-triage platform.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- Evaluation of Diagnostic and Triage Accuracy and Usability of a Symptom Checker in an Emergency Department: Observational Study.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2022Observational
- Triage Accuracy of Symptom Checker Apps: 5-Year Follow-up Evaluation.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Article
- Determinants of Laypersons' Trust in Medical Decision Aids: Randomized Controlled Trial.JMIR human factors · 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
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.