Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33849654›Full record

Trial reportArthritis research & therapy2021

Accuracy, patient-perceived usability, and acceptance of two symptom checkers (Ada and Rheport) in rheumatology: interim results from a randomized controlled crossover trial.

Johannes Knitza, Jacob Mohn, Christina Bergmann, Eleni Kampylafka, Melanie Hagen, Daniela Bohr, Harriet Morf, Elizabeth Araujo, Matthias Englbrecht, David Simon and 13 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Arthritis research & therapy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing papers in PubMed
–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

50 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  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

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

23 authors.

Johannes KnitzaDepartment of Internal Medicine 3, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU) and Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Ulmenweg 18, 91054, Erlangen, Germany. johannes.knitza@uk-erlangen.de.ORCID 0000-0001-9695-0657
Jacob MohnDepartment of Internal Medicine 3, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU) and Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Ulmenweg 18, 91054, Erlangen, Germany.
Christina BergmannDepartment of Internal Medicine 3, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU) and Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Ulmenweg 18, 91054, Erlangen, Germany.
Eleni KampylafkaDepartment of Internal Medicine 3, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU) and Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Ulmenweg 18, 91054, Erlangen, Germany.
Melanie HagenDepartment of Internal Medicine 3, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU) and Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Ulmenweg 18, 91054, Erlangen, Germany.
Daniela BohrDepartment of Internal Medicine 3, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU) and Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Ulmenweg 18, 91054, Erlangen, Germany.
Harriet MorfDepartment of Internal Medicine 3, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU) and Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Ulmenweg 18, 91054, Erlangen, Germany.
Elizabeth AraujoDepartment of Internal Medicine 3, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU) and Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Ulmenweg 18, 91054, Erlangen, Germany.
Matthias EnglbrechtDepartment of Internal Medicine 3, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU) and Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Ulmenweg 18, 91054, Erlangen, Germany.
David SimonDepartment of Internal Medicine 3, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU) and Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Ulmenweg 18, 91054, Erlangen, Germany.
Arnd KleyerDepartment of Internal Medicine 3, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU) and Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Ulmenweg 18, 91054, Erlangen, Germany.
Timo MeinderinkDepartment of Internal Medicine 3, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU) and Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Ulmenweg 18, 91054, Erlangen, Germany.
Wolfgang VorbrüggenVerein zur Förderung der Rheumatologie e.V., Würselen, Germany.
Cay Benedikt von der DeckenRheumaDatenRhePort (rhadar), Planegg, Germany.
Stefan KleinertRheumaDatenRhePort (rhadar), Planegg, Germany.
Andreas RammingDepartment of Internal Medicine 3, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU) and Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Ulmenweg 18, 91054, Erlangen, Germany.
Jörg H W DistlerDepartment of Internal Medicine 3, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU) and Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Ulmenweg 18, 91054, Erlangen, Germany.
Nicolas VuillermeUniversité Grenoble Alpes, AGEIS, Grenoble, France.
Achim FrickerQinum GmbH, Cologne, Germany.
Peter Bartz-BazzanellaRheumaDatenRhePort (rhadar), Planegg, Germany.
Georg SchettDepartment of Internal Medicine 3, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU) and Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Ulmenweg 18, 91054, Erlangen, Germany.
Axel J Hueber *Department of Internal Medicine 3, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU) and Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Ulmenweg 18, 91054, Erlangen, Germany.
Martin Welcker *RheumaDatenRhePort (rhadar), Planegg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTimely diagnosis and treatment are essential in the effective management of inflammatory rheumatic diseases (IRDs). Symptom checkers (SCs) promise to accelerate diagnosis, reduce misdiagnoses, and guide patients more effectively through the health care system. Although SCs are increasingly used, there exists little supporting evidence.

objectiveTo assess the diagnostic accuracy, patient-perceived usability, and acceptance of two SCs: (1) Ada and (2) Rheport.

methodsPatients newly presenting to a German secondary rheumatology outpatient clinic were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to complete Ada or Rheport and consecutively the respective other SCs in a prospective non-blinded controlled randomized crossover trial. The primary outcome was the accuracy of the SCs regarding the diagnosis of an IRD compared to the physicians' diagnosis as the gold standard. The secondary outcomes were patient-perceived usability, acceptance, and time to complete the SC.

resultsIn this interim analysis, the first 164 patients who completed the study were analyzed. 32.9% (54/164) of the study subjects were diagnosed with an IRD. Rheport showed a sensitivity of 53.7% and a specificity of 51.8% for IRDs. Ada's top 1 (D1) and top 5 disease suggestions (D5) showed a sensitivity of 42.6% and 53.7% and a specificity of 63.6% and 54.5% concerning IRDs, respectively. The correct diagnosis of the IRD patients was within the Ada D1 and D5 suggestions in 16.7% (9/54) and 25.9% (14/54), respectively. The median System Usability Scale (SUS) score of Ada and Rheport was 75.0/100 and 77.5/100, respectively. The median completion time for both Ada and Rheport was 7.0 and 8.5 min, respectively. Sixty-four percent and 67.1% would recommend using Ada and Rheport to friends and other patients, respectively.

conclusionsWhile SCs are well accepted among patients, their diagnostic accuracy is limited to date.

trial registrationDRKS.de, DRKS00017642 . Registered on 23 July 2019.

Indexed as

RheumatologyCross-Over StudiesHumansProspective StudiesAcceptabilityAccuracyAppsDiagnosiseHealthRheumatologySymptom checkerUsability

Identifiers

PMID33849654
PMCPMC8042673

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.