The effectiveness of electronic differential diagnoses (DDX) generators

A systematic review and meta-analysis

Nick Riches, Maria Panagioti, Rahul Alam, Sudeh Cheraghi-Sohi, Stephen Campbell, Aneez Esmail, Peter Bower

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

18 Citations (Scopus)
3 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Background: Diagnostic errors are costly and they can contribute to adverse patient outcomes, including avoidable deaths. Differential diagnosis (DDX) generators are electronic tools that may facilitate the diagnostic process. Methods and Findings: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the efficacy and utility of DDX generators. We undertook a comprehensive search of the literature including 16 databases from inception to May 2015 and specialist patient safety databases. We also searched the reference lists of included studies. Article screening, selection and data extraction were independently conducted by 2 reviewers. 36 articles met the eligibility criteria and the pooled accurate diagnosis retrieval rate of DDX tools was high with high heterogeneity (pooled rate = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.63 to 0.77; I-2 = 97%, p<0.0001). DDX generators did not demonstrate improved diagnostic retrieval compared to clinicians but small improvements were seen in the before and after studies where clinicians had the opportunity to revisit their diagnoses following DDX generator consultation. Clinical utility data generally indicated high levels of user satisfaction and significant reductions in time taken to use for newer web-based tools. Lengthy differential lists and their low relevance were areas of concern and have the potential to increase diagnostic uncertainty. Data on the number of investigations ordered and on cost-effectiveness remain inconclusive. Conclusions: DDX generators have the potential to improve diagnostic practice among clinicians. However, the high levels of heterogeneity, the variable quality of the reported data and the minimal benefits observed for complex cases suggest caution. Further research needs to be undertaken in routine clinical settings with greater consideration of enablers and barriers which are likely to impact on DDX use before their use in routine clinical practice can be recommended.
Original languageEnglish
Article numbere0148991
Pages (from-to)1-26
Number of pages26
JournalPLoS One
Volume11
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2016
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Dichlorodiphenyl Dichloroethylene
generators (equipment)
systematic review
meta-analysis
electronics
Meta-Analysis
Differential Diagnosis
cost effectiveness
Databases
uncertainty
Patient Safety
Cost effectiveness
Diagnostic Errors
death
screening
Uncertainty
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Screening
Referral and Consultation
Research

Cite this

Riches, N., Panagioti, M., Alam, R., Cheraghi-Sohi, S., Campbell, S., Esmail, A., & Bower, P. (2016). The effectiveness of electronic differential diagnoses (DDX) generators: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One, 11(3), 1-26. [e0148991]. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0148991
Riches, Nick ; Panagioti, Maria ; Alam, Rahul ; Cheraghi-Sohi, Sudeh ; Campbell, Stephen ; Esmail, Aneez ; Bower, Peter. / The effectiveness of electronic differential diagnoses (DDX) generators : A systematic review and meta-analysis. In: PLoS One. 2016 ; Vol. 11, No. 3. pp. 1-26.
@article{1b5bc2123d2a4dfb8d78446fb82c602f,
title = "The effectiveness of electronic differential diagnoses (DDX) generators: A systematic review and meta-analysis",
abstract = "Background: Diagnostic errors are costly and they can contribute to adverse patient outcomes, including avoidable deaths. Differential diagnosis (DDX) generators are electronic tools that may facilitate the diagnostic process. Methods and Findings: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the efficacy and utility of DDX generators. We undertook a comprehensive search of the literature including 16 databases from inception to May 2015 and specialist patient safety databases. We also searched the reference lists of included studies. Article screening, selection and data extraction were independently conducted by 2 reviewers. 36 articles met the eligibility criteria and the pooled accurate diagnosis retrieval rate of DDX tools was high with high heterogeneity (pooled rate = 0.70, 95{\%} CI = 0.63 to 0.77; I-2 = 97{\%}, p<0.0001). DDX generators did not demonstrate improved diagnostic retrieval compared to clinicians but small improvements were seen in the before and after studies where clinicians had the opportunity to revisit their diagnoses following DDX generator consultation. Clinical utility data generally indicated high levels of user satisfaction and significant reductions in time taken to use for newer web-based tools. Lengthy differential lists and their low relevance were areas of concern and have the potential to increase diagnostic uncertainty. Data on the number of investigations ordered and on cost-effectiveness remain inconclusive. Conclusions: DDX generators have the potential to improve diagnostic practice among clinicians. However, the high levels of heterogeneity, the variable quality of the reported data and the minimal benefits observed for complex cases suggest caution. Further research needs to be undertaken in routine clinical settings with greater consideration of enablers and barriers which are likely to impact on DDX use before their use in routine clinical practice can be recommended.",
author = "Nick Riches and Maria Panagioti and Rahul Alam and Sudeh Cheraghi-Sohi and Stephen Campbell and Aneez Esmail and Peter Bower",
year = "2016",
doi = "10.1371/journal.pone.0148991",
language = "English",
volume = "11",
pages = "1--26",
journal = "PLoS One",
issn = "1932-6203",
publisher = "Public Library of Science",
number = "3",

}

Riches, N, Panagioti, M, Alam, R, Cheraghi-Sohi, S, Campbell, S, Esmail, A & Bower, P 2016, 'The effectiveness of electronic differential diagnoses (DDX) generators: A systematic review and meta-analysis', PLoS One, vol. 11, no. 3, e0148991, pp. 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0148991

The effectiveness of electronic differential diagnoses (DDX) generators : A systematic review and meta-analysis. / Riches, Nick; Panagioti, Maria; Alam, Rahul; Cheraghi-Sohi, Sudeh; Campbell, Stephen; Esmail, Aneez; Bower, Peter.

In: PLoS One, Vol. 11, No. 3, e0148991, 2016, p. 1-26.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - The effectiveness of electronic differential diagnoses (DDX) generators

T2 - A systematic review and meta-analysis

AU - Riches, Nick

AU - Panagioti, Maria

AU - Alam, Rahul

AU - Cheraghi-Sohi, Sudeh

AU - Campbell, Stephen

AU - Esmail, Aneez

AU - Bower, Peter

PY - 2016

Y1 - 2016

N2 - Background: Diagnostic errors are costly and they can contribute to adverse patient outcomes, including avoidable deaths. Differential diagnosis (DDX) generators are electronic tools that may facilitate the diagnostic process. Methods and Findings: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the efficacy and utility of DDX generators. We undertook a comprehensive search of the literature including 16 databases from inception to May 2015 and specialist patient safety databases. We also searched the reference lists of included studies. Article screening, selection and data extraction were independently conducted by 2 reviewers. 36 articles met the eligibility criteria and the pooled accurate diagnosis retrieval rate of DDX tools was high with high heterogeneity (pooled rate = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.63 to 0.77; I-2 = 97%, p<0.0001). DDX generators did not demonstrate improved diagnostic retrieval compared to clinicians but small improvements were seen in the before and after studies where clinicians had the opportunity to revisit their diagnoses following DDX generator consultation. Clinical utility data generally indicated high levels of user satisfaction and significant reductions in time taken to use for newer web-based tools. Lengthy differential lists and their low relevance were areas of concern and have the potential to increase diagnostic uncertainty. Data on the number of investigations ordered and on cost-effectiveness remain inconclusive. Conclusions: DDX generators have the potential to improve diagnostic practice among clinicians. However, the high levels of heterogeneity, the variable quality of the reported data and the minimal benefits observed for complex cases suggest caution. Further research needs to be undertaken in routine clinical settings with greater consideration of enablers and barriers which are likely to impact on DDX use before their use in routine clinical practice can be recommended.

AB - Background: Diagnostic errors are costly and they can contribute to adverse patient outcomes, including avoidable deaths. Differential diagnosis (DDX) generators are electronic tools that may facilitate the diagnostic process. Methods and Findings: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the efficacy and utility of DDX generators. We undertook a comprehensive search of the literature including 16 databases from inception to May 2015 and specialist patient safety databases. We also searched the reference lists of included studies. Article screening, selection and data extraction were independently conducted by 2 reviewers. 36 articles met the eligibility criteria and the pooled accurate diagnosis retrieval rate of DDX tools was high with high heterogeneity (pooled rate = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.63 to 0.77; I-2 = 97%, p<0.0001). DDX generators did not demonstrate improved diagnostic retrieval compared to clinicians but small improvements were seen in the before and after studies where clinicians had the opportunity to revisit their diagnoses following DDX generator consultation. Clinical utility data generally indicated high levels of user satisfaction and significant reductions in time taken to use for newer web-based tools. Lengthy differential lists and their low relevance were areas of concern and have the potential to increase diagnostic uncertainty. Data on the number of investigations ordered and on cost-effectiveness remain inconclusive. Conclusions: DDX generators have the potential to improve diagnostic practice among clinicians. However, the high levels of heterogeneity, the variable quality of the reported data and the minimal benefits observed for complex cases suggest caution. Further research needs to be undertaken in routine clinical settings with greater consideration of enablers and barriers which are likely to impact on DDX use before their use in routine clinical practice can be recommended.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84962548067&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.mendeley.com/research/effectiveness-electronic-differential-diagnoses-ddx-generators-systematic-review-metaanalysis-1

U2 - 10.1371/journal.pone.0148991

DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0148991

M3 - Article

VL - 11

SP - 1

EP - 26

JO - PLoS One

JF - PLoS One

SN - 1932-6203

IS - 3

M1 - e0148991

ER -