Original research: How accurate are digital symptom assessment apps for suggesting conditions and urgency advice?: a clinical vignettes comparison to GPs
Authors:
- Stephen GilbertSGStephen Gilbert
- Alicia MehlAMAlicia Mehl
- Adel BaluchABAdel Baluch
- Caoimhe CawleyCCCaoimhe Cawley
- Jean ChallinerJCJean Challiner
- Hamish FraserHFHamish Fraser
- Elizabeth MillenEMElizabeth Millen
- Jan MultmeierJMJan Multmeier
- Fiona PickFPFiona Pick
- Claudia RichterCRClaudia Richter
- Ewelina TuerkETEwelina Tuerk
- Shubhanan UpadhyaySUShubhanan Upadhyay
Preprint
Abstract
Objectives: To compare breadth of condition coverage, accuracy of suggested conditions and appropriateness of urgency advice of 8 popular symptom assessment apps with each other and with 7 General Practitioners. Design: Clinical vignettes study. Setting: 200 clinical vignettes representing real-world scenarios in primary care. Intervention/comparator: Condition coverage, suggested condition accuracy, and urgency advice performance was measured against the vignettes’ gold-standard diagnoses and triage level. Primary outcome measures: Outcomes included (i) proportion of conditions “covered” by an app, i.e. not excluded because the patient was too young/old, pregnant, or comorbid, (ii) proportion of vignettes in which the correct primary diagnosis was amongst the top 3 conditions suggested, and, (iii) proportion of “safe” urgency level advice (i.e. at gold standard level, more conservative, or no more than one level less conservative). Results: Condition-suggestion coverage was highly variable, with some apps not offering a suggestion for many users: in alphabetical order, Ada: 99.0%; Babylon: 51.5%; Buoy: 88.5%; K Health: 74.5%; Mediktor: 80.5%; Symptomate: 61.5%; Your.MD: 64.5%. The top-3 suggestion accuracy (M3) of GPs was on average 82.i±5.2%. For the apps it was - Ada: 70.5%; Babylon: 32.0%; Buoy: 43.0%; K Health: 36.0%; Mediktor: 36.0%; Symptomate: 27.5%; WebMD: 35.5%; Your.MD: 23.5%. Some apps exclude certain user groups (e.g. younger users) or certain conditions - for these apps condition-suggestion performance is generally greater with exclusion of these vignettes. For safe urgency advice, tested GPs had an average of 97.0±2.5%. For the vignettes with advice provided, only three apps had safety performance within 1 S.D. of the GPs (mean) - Ada: 97.0%; Babylon: 95.i%; Symptomate: 97.8%. One app had a safety performance within 2 S.D.s of GPs - Your.MD: 92.6%. Three apps had a safety performance outside 2 S.D.s of GPs - Buoy: 80.0% ( p p p =1.3×10 -3 ). Conclusions: The utility of digital symptom assessment apps relies upon coverage, accuracy, and safety. While no digital tool outperformed GPs, some came close, and the nature of iterative improvements to software offers scalable improvements to care.Keywords
All Related Versions
- Published version: BMJ Open, 10 (12), e040269.
This publication has 24 references indexed in Scilit:
- Comparison of Physician and Computer Diagnostic AccuracyJAMA Internal Medicine, 2016
- Are online symptoms checkers useful for patients with inflammatory arthritis?BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 2016
- How Accurate Are Patients at Diagnosing the Cause of Their Knee Pain With the Help of a Web-based Symptom Checker?Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine, 2016
- Evaluation of symptom checkers for self diagnosis and triage: audit studyBMJ, 2015
- Methods of Observing Variations in Physicians’ Decisions: The Opportunities of Clinical VignettesJournal of General Internal Medicine, 2015
- Vignette methodologies for studying clinicians’ decision-making: Validity, utility, and application in ICD-11 field studiesInternational Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 2015
- How to choose the right statistical test?Indian Journal Of Ophthalmology, 2011
- Clinical Vignette-Based Surveys: A Tool for Assessing Physician Practice VariationAmerican Journal of Medical Quality, 2005
- Performance of Four Computer-Based Diagnostic SystemsNew England Journal of Medicine, 1994
- Probable Inference, the Law of Succession, and Statistical InferenceJournal of the American Statistical Association, 1927