Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36121688›Full record

Observational studyJMIR mHealth and uHealth2022

Evaluation of Diagnostic and Triage Accuracy and Usability of a Symptom Checker in an Emergency Department: Observational Study.

Hamish S F Fraser, Gregory Cohan, Christopher Koehler, Jared Anderson, Alexis Lawrence, John Pateña, Ian Bacher, Megan L Ranney

Open access · goldAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
7.6field-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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Hamish S F FraserBrown Center for Biomedical Informatics, Warren Alpert Medical School, Brown University, Providence, RI, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-4383-2854
Gregory CohanWarren Alpert Medical School, Brown University, Providence, RI, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-2257-799X
Christopher KoehlerDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Brown University, Providence, RI, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-7228-0609
Jared AndersonDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Brown University, Providence, RI, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-7682-9059
Alexis LawrenceHarvard Medical Faculty Physicians, Department of Emergency Medicine, St Luke's Hospital, New Bedford, MA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-9406-5088
John PateñaBrown-Lifespan Center for Digital Health, Providence, RI, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-4652-1712
Ian BacherBrown Center for Biomedical Informatics, Warren Alpert Medical School, Brown University, Providence, RI, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-2383-3411
Megan L RanneySchool of Public Health, Brown University, Providence, RI, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-8450-9642
Brown University · USLifespan · USSt. Luke's Hospital · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSymptom checkers are clinical decision support apps for patients, used by tens of millions of people annually. They are designed to provide diagnostic and triage advice and assist users in seeking the appropriate level of care. Little evidence is available regarding their diagnostic and triage accuracy with direct use by patients for urgent conditions.

objectiveThe aim of this study is to determine the diagnostic and triage accuracy and usability of a symptom checker in use by patients presenting to an emergency department (ED).

methodsWe recruited a convenience sample of English-speaking patients presenting for care in an urban ED. Each consenting patient used a leading symptom checker from Ada Health before the ED evaluation. Diagnostic accuracy was evaluated by comparing the symptom checker's diagnoses and those of 3 independent emergency physicians viewing the patient-entered symptom data, with the final diagnoses from the ED evaluation. The Ada diagnoses and triage were also critiqued by the independent physicians. The patients completed a usability survey based on the Technology Acceptance Model.

resultsA total of 40 (80%) of the 50 participants approached completed the symptom checker assessment and usability survey. Their mean age was 39.3 (SD 15.9; range 18-76) years, and they were 65% (26/40) female, 68% (27/40) White, 48% (19/40) Hispanic or Latino, and 13% (5/40) Black or African American. Some cases had missing data or a lack of a clear ED diagnosis; 75% (30/40) were included in the analysis of diagnosis, and 93% (37/40) for triage. The sensitivity for at least one of the final ED diagnoses by Ada (based on its top 5 diagnoses) was 70% (95% CI 54%-86%), close to the mean sensitivity for the 3 physicians (on their top 3 diagnoses) of 68.9%. The physicians rated the Ada triage decisions as 62% (23/37) fully agree and 24% (9/37) safe but too cautious. It was rated as unsafe and too risky in 22% (8/37) of cases by at least one physician, in 14% (5/37) of cases by at least two physicians, and in 5% (2/37) of cases by all 3 physicians. Usability was rated highly; participants agreed or strongly agreed with the 7 Technology Acceptance Model usability questions with a mean score of 84.6%, although "satisfaction" and "enjoyment" were rated low.

conclusionsThis study provides preliminary evidence that a symptom checker can provide acceptable usability and diagnostic accuracy for patients with various urgent conditions. A total of 14% (5/37) of symptom checker triage recommendations were deemed unsafe and too risky by at least two physicians based on the symptoms recorded, similar to the results of studies on telephone and nurse triage. Larger studies are needed of diagnosis and triage performance with direct patient use in different clinical environments.

Indexed as

Decision Support Systems, ClinicalEmergency Service, HospitalPhysiciansAdolescentAdultAgedFemaleHumansMiddle AgedSurveys and QuestionnairesTriageYoung AdultdiagnosismHealthmobile healthsymptom checkeruser experience

Identifiers

PMID36121688
PMCPMC9531004
OpenAlexW4281872984

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.