Triage and diagnostic accuracy of Online Symptom Checkers: a systematic review
File(s)
Published version
Author(s)
Type
Journal Article
Abstract
Background:
In the context of a deepening global shortage of health workers and, in particular, the COVID-19 pandemic, there is growing international interest in, and use of, online symptom checkers (OSCs). However, the evidence surrounding the triage and diagnostic accuracy of these tools remains inconclusive.
Objective:
This systematic review aimed to summarize the existing peer-reviewed literature evaluating the triage accuracy (directing users to appropriate services based on their presenting symptoms) and diagnostic accuracy of OSCs aimed at lay users for general health concerns.
Methods:
Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Health Management Information Consortium (HMIC), and Web of Science, as well as the citations of the studies selected for full-text screening. We included peer-reviewed studies published in English between January 1, 2010, and February 16, 2022, with a controlled and quantitative assessment of either or both triage and diagnostic accuracy of OSCs directed at lay users. We excluded tools supporting health care professionals, as well as disease- or specialty-specific OSCs. Screening and data extraction were carried out independently by 2 reviewers for each study. We performed a descriptive narrative synthesis.
Results:
A total of 21,296 studies were identified, of which 14 (0.07%) were included. The included studies used clinical vignettes, medical records, or direct input by patients. Of the 14 studies, 6 (43%) reported on triage and diagnostic accuracy, 7 (50%) focused on triage accuracy, and 1 (7%) focused on diagnostic accuracy. These outcomes were assessed based on the diagnostic and triage recommendations attached to the vignette in the case of vignette studies or on those provided by nurses or general practitioners, including through face-to-face and telephone consultations. Both diagnostic accuracy and triage accuracy varied greatly among OSCs. Overall diagnostic accuracy was deemed to be low and was almost always lower than that of the comparator. Similarly, most of the studies (9/13, 69 %) showed suboptimal triage accuracy overall, with a few exceptions (4/13, 31%). The main variables affecting the levels of diagnostic and triage accuracy were the severity and urgency of the condition, the use of artificial intelligence algorithms, and demographic questions. However, the impact of each variable differed across tools and studies, making it difficult to draw any solid conclusions. All included studies had at least one area with unclear risk of bias according to the revised Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool.
Conclusions:
Although OSCs have potential to provide accessible and accurate health advice and triage recommendations to users, more research is needed to validate their triage and diagnostic accuracy before widescale adoption in community and health care settings. Future studies should aim to use a common methodology and agreed standard for evaluation to facilitate objective benchmarking and validation.
Trial Registration:
PROSPERO CRD42020215210; https://tinyurl.com/3949zw83
In the context of a deepening global shortage of health workers and, in particular, the COVID-19 pandemic, there is growing international interest in, and use of, online symptom checkers (OSCs). However, the evidence surrounding the triage and diagnostic accuracy of these tools remains inconclusive.
Objective:
This systematic review aimed to summarize the existing peer-reviewed literature evaluating the triage accuracy (directing users to appropriate services based on their presenting symptoms) and diagnostic accuracy of OSCs aimed at lay users for general health concerns.
Methods:
Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Health Management Information Consortium (HMIC), and Web of Science, as well as the citations of the studies selected for full-text screening. We included peer-reviewed studies published in English between January 1, 2010, and February 16, 2022, with a controlled and quantitative assessment of either or both triage and diagnostic accuracy of OSCs directed at lay users. We excluded tools supporting health care professionals, as well as disease- or specialty-specific OSCs. Screening and data extraction were carried out independently by 2 reviewers for each study. We performed a descriptive narrative synthesis.
Results:
A total of 21,296 studies were identified, of which 14 (0.07%) were included. The included studies used clinical vignettes, medical records, or direct input by patients. Of the 14 studies, 6 (43%) reported on triage and diagnostic accuracy, 7 (50%) focused on triage accuracy, and 1 (7%) focused on diagnostic accuracy. These outcomes were assessed based on the diagnostic and triage recommendations attached to the vignette in the case of vignette studies or on those provided by nurses or general practitioners, including through face-to-face and telephone consultations. Both diagnostic accuracy and triage accuracy varied greatly among OSCs. Overall diagnostic accuracy was deemed to be low and was almost always lower than that of the comparator. Similarly, most of the studies (9/13, 69 %) showed suboptimal triage accuracy overall, with a few exceptions (4/13, 31%). The main variables affecting the levels of diagnostic and triage accuracy were the severity and urgency of the condition, the use of artificial intelligence algorithms, and demographic questions. However, the impact of each variable differed across tools and studies, making it difficult to draw any solid conclusions. All included studies had at least one area with unclear risk of bias according to the revised Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool.
Conclusions:
Although OSCs have potential to provide accessible and accurate health advice and triage recommendations to users, more research is needed to validate their triage and diagnostic accuracy before widescale adoption in community and health care settings. Future studies should aim to use a common methodology and agreed standard for evaluation to facilitate objective benchmarking and validation.
Trial Registration:
PROSPERO CRD42020215210; https://tinyurl.com/3949zw83
Date Issued
2023-06-02
Date Acceptance
2023-04-11
Citation
Journal of Medical Internet Research, 2023, 25, pp.1-18
ISSN
1438-8871
Publisher
JMIR Publications
Start Page
1
End Page
18
Journal / Book Title
Journal of Medical Internet Research
Volume
25
Copyright Statement
©Eva Riboli-Sasco, Austen El-Osta, Aos Alaa, Iman Webber, Manisha Karki, Marie Line El Asmar, Katie Purohit, Annabelle
Painter, Benedict Hayhoe. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 02.06.2023.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work, first published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic
information, a link to the original publication on https://www.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must
be included.
Painter, Benedict Hayhoe. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 02.06.2023.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work, first published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic
information, a link to the original publication on https://www.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must
be included.
License URL
Identifier
https://www.jmir.org/2023/1/e43803
Publication Status
Published
Date Publish Online
2023-06-02