Semigran Hannah L, Linder Jeffrey A, Gidengil Courtney, Mehrotra Ateev
Department of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA.
Division of General Medicine and Primary Care, Brigham and Women's Hospital & Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
BMJ. 2015 Jul 8;351:h3480. doi: 10.1136/bmj.h3480.
To determine the diagnostic and triage accuracy of online symptom checkers (tools that use computer algorithms to help patients with self diagnosis or self triage).
Audit study.
Publicly available, free symptom checkers.
23 symptom checkers that were in English and provided advice across a range of conditions. 45 standardized patient vignettes were compiled and equally divided into three categories of triage urgency: emergent care required (for example, pulmonary embolism), non-emergent care reasonable (for example, otitis media), and self care reasonable (for example, viral upper respiratory tract infection).
For symptom checkers that provided a diagnosis, our main outcomes were whether the symptom checker listed the correct diagnosis first or within the first 20 potential diagnoses (n=770 standardized patient evaluations). For symptom checkers that provided a triage recommendation, our main outcomes were whether the symptom checker correctly recommended emergent care, non-emergent care, or self care (n=532 standardized patient evaluations).
The 23 symptom checkers provided the correct diagnosis first in 34% (95% confidence interval 31% to 37%) of standardized patient evaluations, listed the correct diagnosis within the top 20 diagnoses given in 58% (55% to 62%) of standardized patient evaluations, and provided the appropriate triage advice in 57% (52% to 61%) of standardized patient evaluations. Triage performance varied by urgency of condition, with appropriate triage advice provided in 80% (95% confidence interval 75% to 86%) of emergent cases, 55% (47% to 63%) of non-emergent cases, and 33% (26% to 40%) of self care cases (P<0.001). Performance on appropriate triage advice across the 23 individual symptom checkers ranged from 33% (95% confidence interval 19% to 48%) to 78% (64% to 91%) of standardized patient evaluations.
Symptom checkers had deficits in both triage and diagnosis. Triage advice from symptom checkers is generally risk averse, encouraging users to seek care for conditions where self care is reasonable.
确定在线症状检查工具(使用计算机算法帮助患者进行自我诊断或自我分诊的工具)的诊断和分诊准确性。
审计研究。
公开可用的免费症状检查工具。
23种英文症状检查工具,可针对一系列病症提供建议。编制了45个标准化患者病例,并将其平均分为三类分诊紧急程度:需要紧急护理(例如,肺栓塞)、非紧急护理合理(例如,中耳炎)和自我护理合理(例如,病毒性上呼吸道感染)。
对于提供诊断的症状检查工具,我们的主要观察指标是症状检查工具是否首先列出正确诊断或在最初20个可能诊断中列出正确诊断(n = 770次标准化患者评估)。对于提供分诊建议的症状检查工具,我们的主要观察指标是症状检查工具是否正确推荐紧急护理、非紧急护理或自我护理(n = 532次标准化患者评估)。
在34%(95%置信区间31%至37%)的标准化患者评估中,23种症状检查工具首先提供了正确诊断;在58%(55%至62%)的标准化患者评估中,在给出的前20个诊断中列出了正确诊断;在57%(52%至61%)的标准化患者评估中提供了适当的分诊建议。分诊表现因病症紧急程度而异,在80%(95%置信区间75%至86%)的紧急病例、55%(47%至63%)的非紧急病例和33%(26%至40%)的自我护理病例中提供了适当的分诊建议(P<0.001)。在23种个体症状检查工具中,适当分诊建议的表现范围为标准化患者评估的33%(95%置信区间19%至48%)至78%(64%至91%)。
症状检查工具在分诊和诊断方面均存在不足。症状检查工具的分诊建议通常规避风险,鼓励用户针对自我护理合理的病症寻求护理。