Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38809606›Full record

Trial reportJournal of medical Internet research2024

A Symptom-Checker for Adult Patients Visiting an Interdisciplinary Emergency Care Center and the Safety of Patient Self-Triage: Real-Life Prospective Evaluation.

Andreas Meer, Philipp Rahm, Markus Schwendinger, Michael Vock, Bettina Grunder, Jacopo Demurtas, Jonas Rutishauser

Registry-linked trialAbstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of medical Internet research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04055298 (Is Self-triage by Patients Using a Symptom-checker Safe?), which is not on this map. Cited by 10 papers.

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

NCT04055298 nacompletednot on this map

Is Self-triage by Patients Using a Symptom-checker Safe?

TypeinterventionalSponsorAndreas MeerRan2019 to 2022Enrolled2,500ConditionsTriageArmsSMASS-Triage
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Observational
  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

7 authors.

Andreas MeerIn4medicine Inc, Bern, Switzerland.ORCID 0009-0002-4728-8753
Philipp RahmCantonal Hospital Baden, Baden, Switzerland.ORCID 0009-0007-6708-7357
Markus SchwendingerCantonal Hospital Baden, Baden, Switzerland.ORCID 0009-0000-8340-8826
Michael VockInstitute of Mathematical Statistics and Actuarial Science, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0003-2069-1833
Bettina GrunderIn4medicine Inc, Bern, Switzerland.ORCID 0009-0005-8233-4956
Jacopo DemurtasIn4medicine Inc, Bern, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0003-3001-8546
Jonas RutishauserClinical Trial Unit, Cantonal Hospital Baden and Medical Faculty, University of Basel, Baden, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0003-1084-471X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSymptom-checkers have become important tools for self-triage, assisting patients to determine the urgency of medical care. To be safe and effective, these tools must be validated, particularly to avoid potentially hazardous undertriage without leading to inefficient overtriage. Only limited safety data from studies including small sample sizes have been available so far.

objectiveThe objective of our study was to prospectively investigate the safety of patients' self-triage in a large patient sample. We used SMASS (Swiss Medical Assessment System; in4medicine, Inc) pathfinder, a symptom-checker based on a computerized transparent neural network.

methodsWe recruited 2543 patients into this single-center, prospective clinical trial conducted at the cantonal hospital of Baden, Switzerland. Patients with an Emergency Severity Index of 1-2 were treated by the team of the emergency department, while those with an index of 3-5 were seen at the walk-in clinic by general physicians. We compared the triage recommendation obtained by the patients' self-triage with the assessment of clinical urgency made by 3 successive interdisciplinary panels of physicians (panels A, B, and C). Using the Clopper-Pearson CI, we assumed that to confirm the symptom-checkers' safety, the upper confidence bound for the probability of a potentially hazardous undertriage should lie below 1%. A potentially hazardous undertriage was defined as a triage in which either all (consensus criterion) or the majority (majority criterion) of the experts of the last panel (panel C) rated the triage of the symptom-checker to be "rather likely" or "likely" life-threatening or harmful.

resultsOf the 2543 patients, 1227 (48.25%) were female and 1316 (51.75%) male. None of the patients reached the prespecified consensus criterion for a potentially hazardous undertriage. This resulted in an upper 95% confidence bound of 0.1184%. Further, 4 cases met the majority criterion. This resulted in an upper 95% confidence bound for the probability of a potentially hazardous undertriage of 0.3616%. The 2-sided 95% Clopper-Pearson CI for the probability of overtriage (n=450 cases,17.69%) was 16.23% to 19.24%, which is considerably lower than the figures reported in the literature.

conclusionsThe symptom-checker proved to be a safe triage tool, avoiding potentially hazardous undertriage in a real-life clinical setting of emergency consultations at a walk-in clinic or emergency department without causing undesirable overtriage. Our data suggest the symptom-checker may be safely used in clinical routine.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04055298; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04055298.

Indexed as

Emergency Service, HospitalTriageAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient SafetyProspective StudiesSwitzerlandappapplicationapplicationsappscheckcheckercheckersdiagnosesdiagnosisdiagnosticdiagnosticsmHealthmobile healthneural networkneural networkssafetyself-assessmentself-triagesymptomsymptom-checkersymptomstelehealthtelemedicineteletriagetriagetriagingvalidationvalidityweb

Identifiers

PMID38809606
PMCPMC11240063

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.