ArticleDermatology practical & conceptual2022
Application of an Interactive Diagnosis Ranking Algorithm in a Simulated Vignette-based Environment for General Dermatology.
Article in Dermatology practical & conceptual, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Diagnostic algorithms may reduce noise and bias and improve interrater agreement of clinical decisions. In a practical sense, algorithms may serve as alternatives to specialist consultations or decision support in store-and-forward tele-dermatology. It is, however, unknown how dermatologists interact with algorithms based on questionnaires. Objectives: To evaluate the performance of a questionnaire-based diagnostic algorithm when applied by users with different expertise. Methods: We created 58 virtual test cases covering common dermatologic diseases and asked five raters with different expertise to complete a predefined clinical questionnaire, which served as input for a disease ranking algorithm. We compared the ranks of the correct diagnosis between users, analyzed the similarity between inputs of different users, and explored the impact of different parts of the questionnaire on the final ranking. Results: When applied by a board-certified dermatologist, the algorithm top-ranked the correct diagnosis in the majority of cases (median rank 1; interquartile range: 1.0; mean reciprocal rank 0.757). The median rank of the correct diagnosis was significantly lower when the algorithm was applied by four dermatology residents (median rank 2-5, P < 0.01). The lowest similarity between inputs of the residents and the board-certified dermatologist was found for questions regarding morphology. Sensitivity analysis showed the highest deterioration in performance after omission of information on morphology and anatomic site. Conclusions: A simple questionnaire-based disease ranking algorithm provides accurate ranking for a wide variety of dermatologic conditions. When applied in clinical practice, additional measures may be needed to ensure robustness of data entry for inexperienced users.
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.