Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35099395›Full record

ArticleJMIR mental health2022

Diagnostic Performance of an App-Based Symptom Checker in Mental Disorders: Comparative Study in Psychotherapy Outpatients.

Severin Hennemann, Sebastian Kuhn, Michael Witthöft, Stefanie M Jungmann

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR mental health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing 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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. 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

4 authors.

Severin HennemannDepartment of Clinical Psychology, Psychotherapy and Experimental Psychopathology, University of Mainz, Mainz, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8780-9985
Sebastian KuhnDepartment of Digital Medicine, Medical Faculty OWL, Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8031-2973
Michael WitthöftDepartment of Clinical Psychology, Psychotherapy and Experimental Psychopathology, University of Mainz, Mainz, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4928-4222
Stefanie M JungmannDepartment of Clinical Psychology, Psychotherapy and Experimental Psychopathology, University of Mainz, Mainz, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0201-9517

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDigital technologies have become a common starting point for health-related information-seeking. Web- or app-based symptom checkers aim to provide rapid and accurate condition suggestions and triage advice but have not yet been investigated for mental disorders in routine health care settings.

objectiveThis study aims to test the diagnostic performance of a widely available symptom checker in the context of formal diagnosis of mental disorders when compared with therapists' diagnoses based on structured clinical interviews.

methodsAdult patients from an outpatient psychotherapy clinic used the app-based symptom checker Ada-check your health (ADA; Ada Health GmbH) at intake. Accuracy was assessed as the agreement of the first and 1 of the first 5 condition suggestions of ADA with at least one of the interview-based therapist diagnoses. In addition, sensitivity, specificity, and interrater reliabilities (Gwet first-order agreement coefficient [AC1]) were calculated for the 3 most prevalent disorder categories. Self-reported usability (assessed using the System Usability Scale) and acceptance of ADA (assessed using an adapted feedback questionnaire) were evaluated.

resultsA total of 49 patients (30/49, 61% women; mean age 33.41, SD 12.79 years) were included in this study. Across all patients, the interview-based diagnoses matched ADA's first condition suggestion in 51% (25/49; 95% CI 37.5-64.4) of cases and 1 of the first 5 condition suggestions in 69% (34/49; 95% CI 55.4-80.6) of cases. Within the main disorder categories, the accuracy of ADA's first condition suggestion was 0.82 for somatoform and associated disorders, 0.65 for affective disorders, and 0.53 for anxiety disorders. Interrater reliabilities ranged from low (AC1=0.15 for anxiety disorders) to good (AC1=0.76 for somatoform and associated disorders). The usability of ADA was rated as high in the System Usability Scale (mean 81.51, SD 11.82, score range 0-100). Approximately 71% (35/49) of participants would have preferred a face-to-face over an app-based diagnostic.

conclusionsOverall, our findings suggest that a widely available symptom checker used in the formal diagnosis of mental disorders could provide clinicians with a list of condition suggestions with moderate-to-good accuracy. However, diagnostic performance was heterogeneous between disorder categories and included low interrater reliability. Although symptom checkers have some potential to complement the diagnostic process as a screening tool, the diagnostic performance should be tested in larger samples and in comparison with further diagnostic instruments.

Indexed as

diagnosticsmental disordersmHealthmobile phonepsychotherapysymptom checker

Identifiers

PMID35099395
PMCPMC8844983

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.