RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Original research: How accurate are digital symptom assessment apps for suggesting conditions and urgency advice?: a clinical vignettes comparison to GPs
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2020.05.07.20093872
DO 10.1101/2020.05.07.20093872
A1 Stephen Gilbert
A1 Alicia Mehl
A1 Adel Baluch
A1 Caoimhe Cawley
A1 Jean Challiner
A1 Hamish Fraser
A1 Elizabeth Millen
A1 Jan Multmeier
A1 Fiona Pick
A1 Claudia Richter
A1 Ewelina Türk
A1 Shubhanan Upadhyay
A1 Vishaal Virani
A1 Nicola Vona
A1 Paul Wicks
A1 Claire Novorol
YR 2020
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/05/13/2020.05.07.20093872.abstract
AB 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 82.1±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: 95.1%; 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<0.001); K Health: 81.3% (p<0.001); Mediktor: 87.3% (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.Article Summary Strengths and limitations of this studyStrengths of the study include a large number of vignettes, peer-reviewed by independent and experienced primary care physicians to minimise bias.Furthermore, GPs and apps were tested with vignettes in a manner that simulates real clinical consultations, based on mock telephone consultations, with detailed source data verification.Vignette entry was conducted by professionals; a recent study found that laypeople are less good at entering vignettes for symptoms that they have never experienced.Limitations include the lack of a rigorous and comprehensive selection process to choose the 8 apps and the lack of real patient experience assessment. Because software is constantly evolving, our findings cannot necessarily be generalized in the future. Future replication by independent researchers is needed.Competing Interest StatementSome of the authors are employees of/hold equity in the manufacturer of one of the tested apps (Ada Health GmbH). See author affiliations.Funding StatementThis study was funded by Ada Health GmbH. HF has not received any compensation from Ada Health financial or otherwise.Author DeclarationsAll relevant ethical guidelines have been followed; any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained and details of the IRB/oversight body are included in the manuscript.YesAll necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAll data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information with the exception of the case vignettes, which will not be uploaded because they will be used in periodic update of the study analysis (in order to monitor comparatively change in app performance over time). Publication would prevent this important ongoing scientific research. The vignettes will not be disclosed to the Ada medical intelligence team or to other app developers.