Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37128443›Full record

ArticleAMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium2022

User Experience of Symptom Checkers: A Systematic Review.

Yue You, Renkai Ma, Xinning Gui

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC
In one paragraph

Article in AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
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

3 authors.

Yue YouPennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA.
Renkai MaPennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA.
Xinning GuiPennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This review reports the user experience of symptom checkers, aiming to characterize users studied in the existing literature, identify the aspects of user experience of symptom checkers that have been studied, and offer design suggestions. Our literature search resulted in 31 publications. We found that (1) most symptom checker users are relatively young; (2) eight relevant aspects of user experience have been explored, including motivation, trust, acceptability, satisfaction, accuracy, usability, safety/security, and functionality; (3) future symptom checkers should improve their accuracy, safety, and usability. Although many facets of user experience have been explored, methodological challenges exist and some important aspects of user experience remain understudied. Further research should be conducted to explore users' needs and the context of use. More qualitative and mixed-method studies are needed to understand actual users' experiences in the future.

Identifiers

PMID37128443
PMCPMC10148318

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.