ArticleJAMIA open2024
Concordance of data collected by an app for medical history taking and in-person interviews from patients in primary care.
Article in JAMIA open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Does an app make patients happy? Impact of a novel medical history app on patient satisfaction in urgent care consultations in Germany: cluster-randomized interventional trial 'DASI'.BMC health services research · 2026Trial
- Evaluation of Prompt Design and Internal Reasoning in Chatbot-Based Medical History Taking: Simulation Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Article
- Taking a closer look: Can an app improve diagnostic accuracy in urgent care? Cluster-randomized interventional trial DASI.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study investigates the concordance of patient information collected using a medical history app compared to in-person interviews. Materials and Methods: In this cross-sectional study we used an app to collect medical data from patients in family practice in Germany. Collected information included age, height, weight, perceived severity of complaints, and 38 current complaints. Subsequently, in-person interviews based on the query structure of the app were conducted with patients directly after the patient finished filling out the app. Concordance was assessed as exact matches between the data collected app-based and in-person interviews, with the in-person interview as a reference. Regression analysis examined which patient characteristics were associated with mismatching and underreporting of complaints. Results: Three hundred ninety-nine patients were included in the study. Concordance of reported age, weight, and height, as well as perceived severity of complaints ranged from 76.2% to 96.7%. Across all 38 complaints, 64.4% of participants showed completely identical complaint selection in app-based and in-person interviews; 18.5% of all participants overreported; and 17.0% underreported at least 1 complaint when using the app. Male sex, higher age, and higher number of stated complaints were associated with higher odds of underreporting at least one complaint in the app. Discussion: App-collected data regarding age, weight, height, and perceived severity of complaints showed high concordance. The discordance shown concerning various complaints should be examined regarding their potential for medical errors. Conclusion: The introduction of apps for gathering information on complaints can improve the efficiency and quality of care but must first be improved. Trial registration: The study was registered at the German Clinical Trials Register No. DRKS00026659 registered November 3, 2021. World Health Organization Trial Registration Data Set, https://trialsearch.who.int/Trial2.aspx?TrialID=DRKS00026659.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.