Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41544248›Full record

ArticleJMIR human factors2026

How to Evaluate the Accuracy of Symptom Checkers and Diagnostic Decision Support Systems: Symptom Checker Accuracy Reporting Framework (SCARF).

Marvin Kopka, Markus A Feufel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR human factors, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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.

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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

2 authors.

Marvin KopkaDivision of Ergonomics, Department of Psychology & Ergonomics (IPA), Technische Universität Berlin, Straße des 17. Juni 135, Berlin, 10623, Germany, 49 30-314-70806.ORCID 0000-0003-3848-1471
Markus A FeufelDivision of Ergonomics, Department of Psychology & Ergonomics (IPA), Technische Universität Berlin, Straße des 17. Juni 135, Berlin, 10623, Germany, 49 30-314-70806.ORCID 0000-0003-0563-8831

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Unlabelled: Symptom checkers are apps and websites that assist medical laypeople in diagnosing their symptoms and determining which course of action to take. When evaluating these tools, previous studies primarily used an approach introduced a decade ago that lacked any type of quality control. Numerous studies have criticized this approach, and several empirical studies have sought to improve specific aspects of evaluations. However, even after a decade, a high-quality methodological framework for standardizing the evaluation of symptom checkers is still lacking. This paper synthesizes empirical studies to outline the Symptom Checker Accuracy Reporting Framework (SCARF) and a corresponding checklist for standardizing evaluations based on representative case selection, an externally and internally valid evaluation design, and metrics that increase cross-study comparability. This approach is supported by several open access resources to facilitate implementation. Ultimately, it should enhance the quality and comparability of future evaluations of online and artificial intelligence (AI)-based symptom checkers, diagnostic decision support systems, and large language models to enable meta-analyses and help stakeholders make more informed decisions.

Indexed as

Decision Support Systems, ClinicalArtificial IntelligenceHumansAIartificial intelligencecase vignettesdata analysisdecision supportevaluationhealth technology assessmentimpact evaluationlarge language modelpreclinicalsymptom assessment applicationssymptom checker

Identifiers

PMID41544248
PMCPMC12810947

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.