Safety of patient-facing digital symptom checkers

The Lancet

Volumn 392, Issue 10161, 2018, Pages 2263-2264

  Fraser, Hamish ^a   Coiera, Enrico ^b   Wong, David ^c  

^a BROWN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b MACQUARIE UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^c UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; CLINICAL DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM; CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS; CLINICAL PRACTICE; DIAGNOSTIC ERROR; DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS; DIGITAL SYMPTOM CHECKER; FALSE NEGATIVE RESULT; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HUMAN; HUMAN COMPUTER INTERACTION; LETTER; MEDICAL INFORMATICS; PATIENT COUNSELING; PATIENT SAFETY; PEER REVIEW; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; ALGORITHM; ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; CONSUMER HEALTH INFORMATICS; CONSUMER HEALTH INFORMATION; EMERGENCY HEALTH SERVICE; INFORMATION SEEKING; PROCEDURES; SAFETY; SELF CARE; STANDARDS; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; TRENDS;

ALGORITHMS; ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; CONSUMER HEALTH INFORMATICS; CONSUMER HEALTH INFORMATION; DIAGNOSTIC ERRORS; HUMANS; INFORMATION SEEKING BEHAVIOR; QUALITY OF HEALTH CARE; SAFETY; SELF CARE; TRIAGE;

EID: 85057555423     PISSN: 01406736     EISSN: 1474547X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32819-8     Document Type: Letter

References (15)

1. Singh, H, Meyer, AN, Thomas, EJ, The frequency of diagnostic errors in outpatient care: estimations from three large observational studies involving US adult populations. BMJ Qual Saf 23 (2014), 727–731.
2. Copestake, J, Babylon claims its chatbot beats GPs at medical exam. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-44635134. (Accessed 9 July 2018)
3. Razzaki, S, Baker, A, Perov, Y, et al. A comparative study of artificial intelligence and human doctors for the purpose of triage and diagnosis. https://marketing-assets.babylonhealth.com/press/BabylonJune2018Paper_Version1.4.2.pdf. (Accessed 20 July 2018)
4. The Lancet. Is digital medicine different?. Lancet, 392, 2018, 95.
5. Coiera, E, Paper review: the Babylon chatbox. https://coiera.com/2018/06/29/paper-review-the-babylon-chatbot/. (Accessed 8 October 2018)
6. Semigran, HL, Linder, JA, Gidengil, C, Mehrotra, A, Evaluation of symptom checkers for self diagnosis and triage: audit study. BMJ, 351, 2015, h3480.
7. Semigran, HL, Levine, DM, Nundy, S, Mehrotra, A, Comparison of physician and computer diagnostic accuracy. JAMA Intern Med 176 (2016), 1860–1861.
8. Wolf, JA, Moreau, JF, Akilov, O, et al. Diagnostic inaccuracy of smartphone applications for melanoma detection. JAMA Dermatol 149 (2013), 422–426.
9. Shuren, J, Patel, B, Gottlieb, S, FDA regulation of mobile medical Apps. JAMA 320 (2018), 337–338.
10. Stead, WW, Haynes, RB, Fuller, S, et al. Designing medical informatics research and library—resource projects to increase what is learned. JAMA 1 (1994), 28–33.
11. Talmon, J, Ammenwerth, E, Brender, J, De Keizer, N, Nykänen, P, Rigby, M, STARE-HI—Statement on reporting of evaluation studies in Health Informatics. Int J Med Inform 78 (2009), 1–9.
12. Murray, E, Hekler, EB, Andersson, G, et al. Evaluating digital health interventions: key questions and approaches. Am J Prev Med 51 (2016), 843–851.
13. Jutel, A, Lupton, D, Digitizing diagnosis: a review of mobile applications in the diagnostic process. Diagnosis 2 (2015), 89–96.
14. Millenson, ML, Baldwin, JL, Zipperer, L, Singh, H, Beyond Dr. Google: the evidence on consumer-facing digital tools for diagnosis. Diagnosis 5 (2018), 95–105.
15. Coiera, E, Ammenwerth, E, Georgiou, A, Magrabi, F, Does health informatics have a replication crisis?. J Am Med Inform Assoc 8 (2018), 963–968.