Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36627158›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2023

Accuracy of self-diagnosis in conditions commonly managed in primary care: diagnostic accuracy systematic review and meta-analysis.

Julie McLellan, Carl Heneghan, Nia Roberts, Annette Pluddemann

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Julie McLellanNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2868-8631
Carl HeneghanNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1009-1992
Nia RobertsBodleian Health Care Libraries, University of Oxford, Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK.
Annette PluddemannNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK annette.pluddemann@phc.ox.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-2101-0390
University of Oxford · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo assess the diagnostic accuracy of self-diagnosis compared with a clinical diagnosis for common conditions in primary care.

designSystematic review. META-ANALYSIS: DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and CINAHL from inception to 25 January 2021. STUDY SELECTION: Eligible studies were prospective or retrospective studies comparing the results of self-diagnosis of common conditions in primary care to a relevant clinical diagnosis or laboratory reference standard test performed by a healthcare service provider. Studies that considered self-testing only were excluded. DATA EXTRACTION: Two authors independently extracted data using a predefined data extraction form and assessed risk of bias using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2. METHODS AND

results5047 records identified 18 studies for inclusion covering the self-diagnosis of three common conditions: vaginal infection (five studies), common skin conditions (four studies) and HIV (nine studies). No studies were found for any other condition. For self-diagnosis of vaginal infection and common skin conditions, meta-analysis was not appropriate and data were reported narratively. Nine studies, using point-of-care oral fluid tests, reported on the accuracy of self-diagnosis of HIV and data were pooled using bivariate meta-analysis methods. For these nine studies, the pooled sensitivity was 92.8% (95% CI, 86% to 96.5%) and specificity was 99.8% (95% CI, 99.1% to 99.9%). Post hoc, the robustness of the pooled findings was tested in a sensitivity analysis only including four studies using laboratory testing as the reference standard. The pooled sensitivity reduced to 87.7% (95% CI, 81.4% to 92.2%) and the specificity remained the same. The quality of all 18 included studies was assessed as mixed and overall study methodology was not always well described. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF KEY

findingsOverall, there was a paucity of evidence. The current evidence does not support routine self-diagnosis for vaginal infections, common skin conditions and HIV in primary care. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018110288.

Indexed as

HIV InfectionsPrimary Health CareFemaleHumansProspective StudiesRetrospective StudiesSensitivity and SpecificityAdult dermatologyGYNAECOLOGYHIV & AIDSPRIMARY CARE

Identifiers

PMID36627158
PMCPMC9835960
OpenAlexW4313986295

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.