Cited by 125Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationArtificial Intelligence in HealthcareTelemedicine and Telehealth Implementation

Accuracy of online symptom checkers and the potential impact on service utilisation

Open access
Ceney, Adam, Tolond, Stephanie, Glowinski, Andrzej, Marks, Ben, Swift, Simon, Palser, Tom·2021·PLOS ONE

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Objectives: The aims of our study are firstly to investigate the diagnostic and triage performance of symptom checkers, secondly to assess their potential impact on healthcare utilisation and thirdly to investigate for variation in performance between systems. Setting: Publicly available symptom checkers for patient use. Participants: Publicly available symptom-checkers were identified. A standardised set of 50 clinical vignettes were developed and systematically run through each system by a non-clinical researcher. Primary and secondary outcome measures: System accuracy was assessed by measuring the percentage of times the correct diagnosis was a) listed first, b) within the top five diagnoses listed and c) listed at all. The safety of the disposition advice was assessed by comparing it with national guidelines for each vignette. Results: Twelve tools were identified and included. Mean diagnostic accuracy of the systems was poor, with the correct diagnosis being present in the top five diagnoses on 51.0% (Range 22.2 to 84.0%). Safety of disposition advice decreased with condition urgency (being 71.8% for emergency cases vs 87.3% for non-urgent cases). 51.0% of systems suggested additional resource utilisation above that recommended by national guidelines (range 18.0% to 61.2%). Both diagnostic accuracy and appropriate resource recommendation varied substantially between systems. Conclusions: There is wide variation in performance between available symptom checkers and overall performance is significantly below what would be accepted in any other medical field, though some do achieve a good level of accuracy and safety of disposition. External validation and regulation are urgently required to ensure these public facing tools are safe.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0254088

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Diagnostic performance of symptom checkers varies significantly between different symptom checkers and has been interpreted as low to moderate at best.

    “Research indicates that, although symptom checkers seem to be easy to use and well-accepted by most users [30,31], the diagnostic performance varies significantly between different symptom checkers and has been interpreted as low to moderate at best [32,33].”

    From Diagnostic Performance of an App-Based Symptom Checker in Mental Disorders: Comparative Study in Psychotherapy Outpatients (2022) · cites this paper as [33]

    The Results (Accuracy of diagnosis) report significant variation between checkers (P < 0.0001), and the Discussion (Summary) describes average diagnostic accuracy as poor. But “low to moderate at best” overlooks the most accurate checker, which listed the correct diagnosis first 72.0% of the time; the paper also says some systems achieved good accuracy. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Previous studies have shown considerable differences between symptom checkers' diagnostic accuracy.

    “As previous studies have shown considerable differences between symptom checkers’ diagnostic accuracy [33,35], future studies could compare various symptom checkers for the formal diagnosis of mental disorders.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ceney, A., Tolond, S., Glowinski, A., Marks, B., Swift, S., & Palser, T.
Affiliations
  • University of Exeter (GB)
  • University of Leicester (GB)
Corresponding author
Ceney, Adam
Venue
PLOS ONE
Published
2021-07-15
Volume
16
Issue
7
Pages
e0254088
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3182482959
Cited by
125
References
18
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 33 · 2021: 5
FWCI
6.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • medRxiv (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
National Institute for Health and Care Research (AI_AWARD02290)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
Keywords
online symptom checkers, diagnostic accuracy, triage, health care utilization, clinical vignettes, guideline adherence, external validation, emergency care
MeSH terms
Humans, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Quality of Health Care, Self Care, Triage, Symptom Assessment

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review