Comparison of Two Symptom Checkers (Ada and Symptoma) in the Emergency Department: Randomized, Crossover, Head-to-Head, Double-Blinded Study

Author:

Knitza JohannesORCID,Hasanaj RagipORCID,Beyer JonathanORCID,Ganzer FranziskaORCID,Slagman AnnaORCID,Bolanaki MyrtoORCID,Napierala HendrikORCID,Schmieding Malte LORCID,Al-Zaher NizamORCID,Orlemann TillORCID,Muehlensiepen FelixORCID,Greenfield JuliaORCID,Vuillerme NicolasORCID,Kuhn SebastianORCID,Schett GeorgORCID,Achenbach StephanORCID,Dechant KatharinaORCID

Abstract

Background Emergency departments (EDs) are frequently overcrowded and increasingly used by nonurgent patients. Symptom checkers (SCs) offer on-demand access to disease suggestions and recommended actions, potentially improving overall patient flow. Contrary to the increasing use of SCs, there is a lack of supporting evidence based on direct patient use. Objective This study aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy, safety, usability, and acceptance of 2 SCs, Ada and Symptoma. Methods A randomized, crossover, head-to-head, double-blinded study including consecutive adult patients presenting to the ED at University Hospital Erlangen. Patients completed both SCs, Ada and Symptoma. The primary outcome was the diagnostic accuracy of SCs. In total, 6 blinded independent expert raters classified diagnostic concordance of SC suggestions with the final discharge diagnosis as (1) identical, (2) plausible, or (3) diagnostically different. SC suggestions per patient were additionally classified as safe or potentially life-threatening, and the concordance of Ada’s and physician-based triage category was assessed. Secondary outcomes were SC usability (5-point Likert-scale: 1=very easy to use to 5=very difficult to use) and SC acceptance net promoter score (NPS). Results A total of 450 patients completed the study between April and November 2021. The most common chief complaint was chest pain (160/437, 37%). The identical diagnosis was ranked first (or within the top 5 diagnoses) by Ada and Symptoma in 14% (59/437; 27%, 117/437) and 4% (16/437; 13%, 55/437) of patients, respectively. An identical or plausible diagnosis was ranked first (or within the top 5 diagnoses) by Ada and Symptoma in 58% (253/437; 75%, 329/437) and 38% (164/437; 64%, 281/437) of patients, respectively. Ada and Symptoma did not suggest potentially life-threatening diagnoses in 13% (56/437) and 14% (61/437) of patients, respectively. Ada correctly triaged, undertriaged, and overtriaged 34% (149/437), 13% (58/437), and 53% (230/437) of patients, respectively. A total of 88% (385/437) and 78% (342/437) of participants rated Ada and Symptoma as very easy or easy to use, respectively. Ada’s NPS was –34 (55% [239/437] detractors; 21% [93/437] promoters) and Symptoma’s NPS was –47 (63% [275/437] detractors and 16% [70/437]) promoters. Conclusions Ada demonstrated a higher diagnostic accuracy than Symptoma, and substantially more patients would recommend Ada and assessed Ada as easy to use. The high number of unrecognized potentially life-threatening diagnoses by both SCs and inappropriate triage advice by Ada was alarming. Overall, the trustworthiness of SC recommendations appears questionable. SC authorization should necessitate rigorous clinical evaluation studies to prevent misdiagnoses, fatal triage advice, and misuse of scarce medical resources. Trial Registration German Register of Clinical Trials DRKS00024830; https://drks.de/search/en/trial/DRKS00024830

Publisher

JMIR Publications Inc.

Reference41 articles.

1. Sektorenübergreifende Entwicklungen in der Notfallversorgung – Eine umfassende Analyse ambulanter und stationärer Notfälle von 2009 bis 2015

2. Worsening of emergency department length of stay during the COVID‐19 pandemic

3. KelenGDWolfeRD’OnofrioGMillsAMDiercksDSternSAWadmanMCSokolovePEEmergency department crowding: the canary in the health care systemNEJM Catalyst Innovations in Care Delivery Massachusetts Medical Society20212022-08-09https://catalyst.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/CAT.21.0217

4. Emergency department crowding: A systematic review of causes, consequences and solutions

5. In the Name of Patient Safety, Let’s Burden the Emergency Department More

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3