%0期刊文章%@ 1438-8871 %I JMIR出版物%V 24 卡塔尔世界杯8强波胆分析%N 5 %P 31810 %T分类准确性症状检查程序:5年随访评价%A Schmieding,Malte L %A Kopka,Marvin %A Schmidt,Konrad %A Schulz-Niethammer,Sven %A Balzer,Felix %A Feufel,Markus A %+柏林慈善会- Universitätsmedizin，柏林自由会Universität和柏林自由会，柏林慈善会1号，柏林10117，德国，49 30450 570425，malte.schmieding@charite.de %K数字健康%K分诊%K症状检查器%K以患者为中心的护理%K电子健康应用程序%K手机%D 2022 %7 10.5.2022 %9原文%J J医学互联网研究%G英语%X背景:症状检查器是帮助非专业人员自我评估医疗投诉的紧迫性和潜在原因的数字工具。它们被广泛使用，但面临着来自患者和卫生保健专业人员的担忧，特别是在它们的准确性方面。2015年的一项具有里程碑意义的研究证实了这些担忧，该研究使用病例插图来证明症状检查人员在分类评估中通常会出错。目的:本研究旨在回顾里程碑指数研究，探讨自2015年以来症状检查者的能力是否以及如何演变，并将其与外行人的独立分诊评估进行比较。方法:在2020年初，我们搜索了提供分诊建议的智能手机和网络应用程序。我们在与指数研究相同的45个案例中评估了这些应用程序。使用描述性统计，我们将我们的发现与索引研究的结果以及外行人分诊能力的公开数据进行了比较。结果:我们检索了22个提供分诊建议的症状检查器。 The median triage accuracy in 2020 (55.8%, IQR 15.1%) was close to that in 2015 (59.1%, IQR 15.5%). The apps in 2020 were less risk averse (odds 1.11:1, the ratio of overtriage errors to undertriage errors) than those in 2015 (odds 2.82:1), missing >40% of emergencies. Few apps outperformed laypersons in either deciding whether emergency care was required or whether self-care was sufficient. No apps outperformed the laypersons on both decisions. Conclusions: Triage performance of symptom checkers has, on average, not improved over the course of 5 years. It decreased in 2 use cases (advice on when emergency care is required and when no health care is needed for the moment). However, triage capability varies widely within the sample of symptom checkers. Whether it is beneficial to seek advice from symptom checkers depends on the app chosen and on the specific question to be answered. Future research should develop resources (eg, case vignette repositories) to audit the capabilities of symptom checkers continuously and independently and provide guidance on when and to whom they should be recommended. %M 35536633 %R 10.2196/31810 %U //www.mybigtv.com/2022/5/e31810 %U https://doi.org/10.2196/31810 %U http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35536633