IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0254088.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Accuracy of online symptom checkers and the potential impact on service utilisation

Author

Listed:
  • Adam Ceney
  • Stephanie Tolond
  • Andrzej Glowinski
  • Ben Marks
  • Simon Swift
  • Tom Palser

Abstract

Objectives: The aims of our study are firstly to investigate the diagnostic and triage performance of symptom checkers, secondly to assess their potential impact on healthcare utilisation and thirdly to investigate for variation in performance between systems. Setting: Publicly available symptom checkers for patient use. Participants: Publicly available symptom-checkers were identified. A standardised set of 50 clinical vignettes were developed and systematically run through each system by a non-clinical researcher. Primary and secondary outcome measures: System accuracy was assessed by measuring the percentage of times the correct diagnosis was a) listed first, b) within the top five diagnoses listed and c) listed at all. The safety of the disposition advice was assessed by comparing it with national guidelines for each vignette. Results: Twelve tools were identified and included. Mean diagnostic accuracy of the systems was poor, with the correct diagnosis being present in the top five diagnoses on 51.0% (Range 22.2 to 84.0%). Safety of disposition advice decreased with condition urgency (being 71.8% for emergency cases vs 87.3% for non-urgent cases). 51.0% of systems suggested additional resource utilisation above that recommended by national guidelines (range 18.0% to 61.2%). Both diagnostic accuracy and appropriate resource recommendation varied substantially between systems. Conclusions: There is wide variation in performance between available symptom checkers and overall performance is significantly below what would be accepted in any other medical field, though some do achieve a good level of accuracy and safety of disposition. External validation and regulation are urgently required to ensure these public facing tools are safe.

Suggested Citation

  • Adam Ceney & Stephanie Tolond & Andrzej Glowinski & Ben Marks & Simon Swift & Tom Palser, 2021. "Accuracy of online symptom checkers and the potential impact on service utilisation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(7), pages 1-16, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0254088
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0254088
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0254088
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0254088&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0254088?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sumanth Swaminathan & Klajdi Qirko & Ted Smith & Ethan Corcoran & Nicholas G Wysham & Gaurav Bazaz & George Kappel & Anthony N Gerber, 2017. "A machine learning approach to triaging patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(11), pages 1-21, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Douglas Spangler & Thomas Hermansson & David Smekal & Hans Blomberg, 2019. "A validation of machine learning-based risk scores in the prehospital setting," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(12), pages 1-18, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0254088. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.