ArticlePLOS digital health2026
Taking a closer look: Can an app improve diagnostic accuracy in urgent care? Cluster-randomized interventional trial DASI.
Article in PLOS digital health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- [Use of a digital health navigator in the emergency department: experiences and acceptance among patients and physicians].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In urgent care settings, efficient medical history-taking is paramount for making timely and accurate treatment decisions. Medical history-taking apps have emerged as a means to streamline this process but their effectiveness in enhancing diagnostic accuracy remains unclear. We aimed to investigate whether using a medical history-taking app before consultation improves diagnostic accuracy. In two German out-of-hours practices (OOHP), patients were recruited over a 12-months period. Within each practice, weeks were randomized to either an intervention or control group, resulting in a cluster-randomized trial (CRT) with clustering in weeks within the same practice. Patients in the intervention group used an app to report their complaints before their consultation, enabling physicians to review their medical history details beforehand. In contrast, patients in the control group used the app after their consultation, and no summary of their medical history was available to the physician. Diagnostic accuracy was defined as the agreement between the OOHP physician's diagnoses and those determined by an expert committee (EC) after reviewing patient files. As a secondary outcome, we compared OOHP and EC physicians' treatment recommendations against patients' self-reported actual treatment (e.g., specialist care, hospital admissions) from a follow-up survey. We analyzed data from 986 patients and found no significant intervention effect on diagnostic accuracy (Odds Ratio 0.94 (95%CI 0.73 - 1.21), 57.6% in intervention vs 59.1% in control group). Additionally, the app had no significant effect on the prediction of further treatment. The only significant factors affecting these outcomes were the number of diagnoses (positively associated with diagnostic accuracy) and a self-reported severe condition (associated with higher likelihood of requiring further treatment). Individual differences between physicians were more pronounced than those between the intervention and control group for the secondary outcome. The study's findings suggest that this medical history-taking app does not enhance diagnostic accuracy in urgent care settings.
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.