Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37266983›Full record

SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2023

Triage and Diagnostic Accuracy of Online Symptom Checkers: Systematic Review.

Eva Riboli-Sasco, Austen El-Osta, Aos Alaa, Iman Webber, Manisha Karki, Marie Line El Asmar, Katie Purohit, Annabelle Painter, Benedict Hayhoe

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of medical Internet research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
21.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

39 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 63 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Ethical Considerations in Personal Health Large Language Models.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Observational
  20. 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

9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Eva Riboli-Sasco *Self-Care Academic Research Unit (SCARU), Department of Primary Care and Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-9922-9125
Austen El-OstaSelf-Care Academic Research Unit (SCARU), Department of Primary Care and Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-8772-4938
Aos AlaaSelf-Care Academic Research Unit (SCARU), Department of Primary Care and Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-4757-2562
Iman WebberSelf-Care Academic Research Unit (SCARU), Department of Primary Care and Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-1690-0121
Manisha KarkiSelf-Care Academic Research Unit (SCARU), Department of Primary Care and Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-6996-8915
Marie Line El AsmarSelf-Care Academic Research Unit (SCARU), Department of Primary Care and Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-8481-6431
Katie PurohitSelf-Care Academic Research Unit (SCARU), Department of Primary Care and Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-6518-3627
Annabelle PainterSelf-Care Academic Research Unit (SCARU), Department of Primary Care and Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-2383-0181
Benedict HayhoeSelf-Care Academic Research Unit (SCARU), Department of Primary Care and Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-2645-6191
Imperial College London · GB

Funding

Department of Health
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn the context of a deepening global shortage of health workers and, in particular, the COVID-19 pandemic, there is growing international interest in, and use of, online symptom checkers (OSCs). However, the evidence surrounding the triage and diagnostic accuracy of these tools remains inconclusive.

objectiveThis systematic review aimed to summarize the existing peer-reviewed literature evaluating the triage accuracy (directing users to appropriate services based on their presenting symptoms) and diagnostic accuracy of OSCs aimed at lay users for general health concerns.

methodsSearches were conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Health Management Information Consortium (HMIC), and Web of Science, as well as the citations of the studies selected for full-text screening. We included peer-reviewed studies published in English between January 1, 2010, and February 16, 2022, with a controlled and quantitative assessment of either or both triage and diagnostic accuracy of OSCs directed at lay users. We excluded tools supporting health care professionals, as well as disease- or specialty-specific OSCs. Screening and data extraction were carried out independently by 2 reviewers for each study. We performed a descriptive narrative synthesis.

resultsA total of 21,296 studies were identified, of which 14 (0.07%) were included. The included studies used clinical vignettes, medical records, or direct input by patients. Of the 14 studies, 6 (43%) reported on triage and diagnostic accuracy, 7 (50%) focused on triage accuracy, and 1 (7%) focused on diagnostic accuracy. These outcomes were assessed based on the diagnostic and triage recommendations attached to the vignette in the case of vignette studies or on those provided by nurses or general practitioners, including through face-to-face and telephone consultations. Both diagnostic accuracy and triage accuracy varied greatly among OSCs. Overall diagnostic accuracy was deemed to be low and was almost always lower than that of the comparator. Similarly, most of the studies (9/13, 69 %) showed suboptimal triage accuracy overall, with a few exceptions (4/13, 31%). The main variables affecting the levels of diagnostic and triage accuracy were the severity and urgency of the condition, the use of artificial intelligence algorithms, and demographic questions. However, the impact of each variable differed across tools and studies, making it difficult to draw any solid conclusions. All included studies had at least one area with unclear risk of bias according to the revised Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool.

conclusionsAlthough OSCs have potential to provide accessible and accurate health advice and triage recommendations to users, more research is needed to validate their triage and diagnostic accuracy before widescale adoption in community and health care settings. Future studies should aim to use a common methodology and agreed standard for evaluation to facilitate objective benchmarking and validation.

trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42020215210; https://tinyurl.com/3949zw83.

Indexed as

COVID-19TriageAlgorithmsArtificial IntelligenceCOVID-19 TestingHumansPandemicsaccuracydiagnosisdigital triagemobile phoneonline symptom checkersafetysystematic review

Identifiers

PMID37266983
PMCPMC10276326
OpenAlexW4364862404

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.