ArticleBMC health services research2025
Evaluating the use of red flags by online symptom checkers.
Article in BMC health services research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOnline Symptom Checkers (OSCs) are digital health tools providing triage, diagnostic, and self-care advice based on user reported symptoms. Amidst global trends of increasing demand and workforce shortages, OSCs have the potential to alleviate primary care workload. However, their ability to seek red flag symptoms, a critical marker of a safe consultation in primary care, remains unexplored. Using clinical vignettes, this study evaluates OSCs' performance in seeking red flag symptoms compared to Primary Care Physicians (PCPs).
methodsFour OSCs (Ada, Babylon, Symptomate, Healthily) were evaluated using 51 clinical vignettes. Two standard setters used guidelines to determine which vignettes required emergency triage and identified the relevant red flags symptoms for the remaining vignettes. Two laypersons entered data from vignettes into OSCs and outputs were collected following a standardised form. The same vignettes were independently assessed by PCPs to compare triage accuracy and red flag identification. Summary statistics and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using Wilson Score intervals, and Fisher's exact test was used to compare performance between OSCs and PCPs.
resultsOf the 51 clinical vignettes, standard setters determined 14 to require emergency triage and the remaining 37 vignettes suitable for primary care triage. Of the primary care triaged vignettes, standard setters identified a total of 77 relevant red flag symptoms to be sought. Of the 14 emergency vignettes, PCPs correctly triaged 85.7% (95% CI: 74.3-92.6%) of cases compared to OSCs 76.9% (95% CI: 59.3-87.9%), with no statistically significant difference (p = 0.299). Specificity, the proportion of correctly triaged primary care vignettes, PCPs performed significantly better compared to OSCs, 91.9% (95%CI 78.9-97.0%) vs. 83.3% (95%CI 68.1-91.9%), p = 0.024.
conclusionsOSCs demonstrated comparable ability to appropriately triage clinical vignettes requiring emergency triage as PCPs, however, were less specific, triaging more primary care vignettes as emergency. OSCs do not seek the majority of red flags. This raises concerns about their safety and effectiveness in primary care. OSCs developers should focus on improving OSCs' red flag coverage to ensure safe integration into primary care settings.
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.