Cited by 91Mobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare

Beyond Dr. Google: the evidence on consumer-facing digital tools for diagnosis

Millenson, Michael L., Baldwin, Jessica L., Zipperer, Lorri, Singh, Hardeep·2018·Diagnosis

Abstract

Over a third of adults go online to diagnose their health condition. Direct-to-consumer (DTC), interactive, diagnostic apps with information personalization capabilities beyond those of static search engines are rapidly proliferating. While these apps promise faster, more convenient and more accurate information to improve diagnosis, little is known about the state of the evidence on their performance or the methods used to evaluate them. We conducted a scoping review of the peer-reviewed and gray literature for the period January 1, 2014–June 30, 2017. We found that the largest category of evaluations involved symptom checkers that applied algorithms to user-answered questions, followed by sensor-driven apps that applied algorithms to smartphone photos, with a handful of evaluations examining crowdsourcing. The most common clinical areas evaluated were dermatology and general diagnostic and triage advice for a range of conditions. Evaluations were highly variable in methodology and conclusions, with about half describing app characteristics and half examining actual performance. Apps were found to vary widely in functionality, accuracy, safety and effectiveness, although the usefulness of this evidence was limited by a frequent failure to provide results by named individual app. Overall, the current evidence base on DTC, interactive diagnostic apps is sparse in scope, uneven in the information provided and inconclusive with respect to safety and effectiveness, with no studies of clinical risks and benefits involving real-world consumer use. Given that DTC diagnostic apps are rapidly evolving, rigorous and standardized evaluations are essential to inform decisions by clinicians, patients, policymakers and other stakeholders.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1515/dx-2018-0009

Cites

46 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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 symptom checker apps targeted at specific symptoms such as hand or knee pain frequently deliver inaccurate advice.

    “Diagnostic symptom checker apps targeted at specific symptoms such as hand or knee pain have been shown to frequently deliver inaccurate advice.”

    From What is the clinical value of mHealth for patients? (2020) · cites this paper as [3]

  • Interactive symptom checkers are the most frequently investigated category of diagnostic app.

    “a recent systematic review demonstrated that interactive symptom checkers are the most frequently investigated category of diagnostic app.”

    From What is the clinical value of mHealth for patients? (2020) · cites this paper as [3]

  • Symptom checker apps are often risk averse and may lead to unnecessary consultations in the non-emergency setting.

    “Published evidence suggests that symptom checker apps are often risk averse and may lead to unnecessary consultations in the non-emergency setting.”

    From What is the clinical value of mHealth for patients? (2020) · cites this paper as [3]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 47 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Millenson, M. L., Baldwin, J. L., Zipperer, L., & Singh, H.
Affiliations
  • Northwestern University (US)
  • Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center (US)
  • Zipperer Project Management , Albuquerque, NM , USA
Corresponding author
Millenson, Michael L.
Venue
Diagnosis
Published
2018-07-23
Volume
5
Issue
3
Pages
95-105
ISSN
  • 2194-8011 (ISSN-L)
  • 2194-802X
OpenAlex
W2884680014
Cited by
91
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2
FWCI
1.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Diagnosis (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (R01HS022087)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
Keywords
self-diagnosis, symptom checkers, crowdsourcing, diagnostic accuracy, safety and effectiveness, dermatology, consumer health information
MeSH terms
Direct-to-Consumer Advertising, Internet Access, Algorithms, Diagnostic Errors, Female, Humans, Male, Triage, Evidence-Based Medicine, Consumer Health Information, Crowdsourcing, Mobile Applications

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