Evaluating the diagnostic and triage performance of digital and online symptom checkers for the presentation of myocardial infarction; A retrospective cross-sectional study

Online symptom checkers are increasingly popular health technologies that enable patients to input their symptoms to produce diagnoses and triage advice. However, there is concern regarding the performance and safety of symptom checkers in diagnosing and triaging patients with life-threatening conditions. This retrospective cross-sectional study aimed to evaluate and compare commercially available symptom checkers for performance in diagnosing and triaging myocardial infarctions (MI). Symptoms and biodata of MI patients were inputted into 8 symptom checkers identified through a systematic search. Anonymised clinical data of 100 consecutive MI patients were collected from a tertiary coronary intervention centre between 1st January 2020 to 31st December 2020. Outcomes included (1) diagnostic sensitivity as defined by symptom checkers outputting MI as the primary diagnosis (D1), or one of the top three (D3), or top five diagnoses (D5); and (2) triage sensitivity as defined by symptom checkers outputting urgent treatment recommendations. Overall D1 sensitivity was 48±31% and varied between symptom checkers (range: 6-85%). Overall D3 and D5 sensitivity were 73±20% (34-92%) and 79±14% (63-94%), respectively. Overall triage sensitivity was 83±13% (55-91%). 24±16% of atypical cases had a correct D1 though for female atypical cases D1 sensitivity was only 10%. Atypical MI D3 and D5 sensitivity were 44±21% and 48±24% respectively and were significantly lower than typical MI cases (p<0.01). Atypical MI triage sensitivity was significantly lower than typical cases (53±20% versus 84±15%, p<0.01). Female atypical cases had significantly lower diagnostic and triage sensitivity than typical female MI cases (p<0.01).Given the severity of the pathology, the diagnostic performance of symptom checkers for correctly diagnosing an MI is concerningly low. Moreover, there is considerable inter-symptom checker performance variation. Patients presenting with atypical symptoms were under-diagnosed and under-triaged, especially if female. This study highlights the need for improved clinical performance, equity and transparency associated with these technologies.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
PLOS Digital Health
Published
2024-08-05
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pdig.0000558
Citations
4
Primary Topic
Acute Myocardial Infarction Research
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.61

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Evaluating the diagnostic and triage performance of digital and online symptom checkers for the presentation of myocardial infarction; A retrospective cross-sectional study

Amish Acharya, Sheraz R. Markar, Swathikan Chidambaram, Xiaoxuan Liu et al.
4 citations
PLOS Digital Health
Acute Myocardial Infarction Research
1.61
article

Evaluating the diagnostic and triage performance of digital and online symptom checkers for the presentation of myocardial infarction; A retrospective cross-sectional study

Amish Acharya, Sheraz R. Markar, Swathikan Chidambaram, Xiaoxuan Liu, Viknesh Sounderajah, Rubeta Matin, William Wallace, Ara Wardkes Darzi, Lydia Hanna, Pasha Normahani, Elisabeth R. Daniels, Calvin Chan
article en
4 citations

Abstract

Online symptom checkers are increasingly popular health technologies that enable patients to input their symptoms to produce diagnoses and triage advice. However, there is concern regarding the performance and safety of symptom checkers in diagnosing and triaging patients with life-threatening conditions. This retrospective cross-sectional study aimed to evaluate and compare commercially available symptom checkers for performance in diagnosing and triaging myocardial infarctions (MI). Symptoms and biodata of MI patients were inputted into 8 symptom checkers identified through a systematic search. Anonymised clinical data of 100 consecutive MI patients were collected from a tertiary coronary intervention centre between 1st January 2020 to 31st December 2020. Outcomes included (1) diagnostic sensitivity as defined by symptom checkers outputting MI as the primary diagnosis (D1), or one of the top three (D3), or top five diagnoses (D5); and (2) triage sensitivity as defined by symptom checkers outputting urgent treatment recommendations. Overall D1 sensitivity was 48±31% and varied between symptom checkers (range: 6-85%). Overall D3 and D5 sensitivity were 73±20% (34-92%) and 79±14% (63-94%), respectively. Overall triage sensitivity was 83±13% (55-91%). 24±16% of atypical cases had a correct D1 though for female atypical cases D1 sensitivity was only 10%. Atypical MI D3 and D5 sensitivity were 44±21% and 48±24% respectively and were significantly lower than typical MI cases (p<0.01). Atypical MI triage sensitivity was significantly lower than typical cases (53±20% versus 84±15%, p<0.01). Female atypical cases had significantly lower diagnostic and triage sensitivity than typical female MI cases (p<0.01).Given the severity of the pathology, the diagnostic performance of symptom checkers for correctly diagnosing an MI is concerningly low. Moreover, there is considerable inter-symptom checker performance variation. Patients presenting with atypical symptoms were under-diagnosed and under-triaged, especially if female. This study highlights the need for improved clinical performance, equity and transparency associated with these technologies.

PLOS Digital HealthVol. 3(8)
University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust (GB), University of Oxford (GB), St Mary's Hospital (GB), Google (United Kingdom) (GB), Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust (GB), St. Mary's Hospital (GB), Imperial College London (GB), University of Birmingham (GB)
National Institute for Health and Care Research, NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre
Openalex Percentile: Top 15%
Acute Myocardial Infarction Research
1.61
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.