Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38875676›Full record

ArticleJMIR AI2024

Evaluating the Diagnostic Performance of Symptom Checkers: Clinical Vignette Study.

Mohammad Hammoud, Shahd Douglas, Mohamad Darmach, Sara Alawneh, Swapnendu Sanyal, Youssef Kanbour

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR AI, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Evaluation and analysis of clinical outcome prediction for trauma patients based on machine learning.Chinese journal of traumatology = Zhonghua chuang shang za zhi · 2026
    Article
  7. 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

6 authors.

Mohammad HammoudAvey Inc, Doha, Qatar.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0679-8407
Shahd DouglasAvey Inc, Doha, Qatar.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0009-0047-9385
Mohamad DarmachAvey Inc, Doha, Qatar.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0002-6120-6443
Sara AlawnehAvey Inc, Doha, Qatar.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0009-3545-6546
Swapnendu SanyalAvey Inc, Doha, Qatar.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5983-8922
Youssef KanbourAvey Inc, Doha, Qatar.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7142-2700

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMedical self-diagnostic tools (or symptom checkers) are becoming an integral part of digital health and our daily lives, whereby patients are increasingly using them to identify the underlying causes of their symptoms. As such, it is essential to rigorously investigate and comprehensively report the diagnostic performance of symptom checkers using standard clinical and scientific approaches.

objectiveThis study aims to evaluate and report the accuracies of a few known and new symptom checkers using a standard and transparent methodology, which allows the scientific community to cross-validate and reproduce the reported results, a step much needed in health informatics.

methodsWe propose a 4-stage experimentation methodology that capitalizes on the standard clinical vignette approach to evaluate 6 symptom checkers. To this end, we developed and peer-reviewed 400 vignettes, each approved by at least 5 out of 7 independent and experienced primary care physicians. To establish a frame of reference and interpret the results of symptom checkers accordingly, we further compared the best-performing symptom checker against 3 primary care physicians with an average experience of 16.6 (SD 9.42) years. To measure accuracy, we used 7 standard metrics, including M1 as a measure of a symptom checker's or a physician's ability to return a vignette's main diagnosis at the top of their differential list, F

resultsThe diagnostic accuracies of the 6 tested symptom checkers vary significantly. For instance, the differences in the M1, F

conclusionsThe performance variation between symptom checkers is substantial, suggesting that symptom checkers cannot be treated as a single entity. On a different note, the best-performing symptom checker was an artificial intelligence (AI)-based one, shedding light on the promise of AI in improving the diagnostic capabilities of symptom checkers, especially as AI keeps advancing exponentially.

Indexed as

AIartificial intelligencedigital healtheHealtheHealth appspatient-centered caresymptom checker

Identifiers

PMID38875676
PMCPMC11091811

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.