Comparison of Two Symptom Checkers (Ada and Symptoma) in the Emergency Department: Randomized, Crossover, Head-to-Head, Double-Blinded Study
Authors: Knitza Johannes , Hasanaj Ragip , Beyer Jonathan , Ganzer Franziska , Slagman Anna , Bolanaki Myrto , Napierala Hendrik , Schmieding Malte L , Al-Zaher Nizam , Orlemann Till , Muehlensiepen Felix , Greenfield Julia , Vuillerme Nicolas , Kuhn Sebastian , Schett Georg , Achenbach Stephan , Dechant Katharina 
Published: June 2024

Background
Emergency departments (EDs) are frequently overcrowded and increasingly used by nonurgent patients. Symptom checkers (SCs) offer on-demand access to disease suggestions and recommended actions, potentially improving overall patient flow. Contrary to the increasing use of SCs, there is a lack of supporting evidence based on direct patient use.

Objective
This study aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy, safety, usability, and acceptance of 2 SCs, Ada and Symptoma.

Methods
A randomized, crossover, head-to-head, double-blinded study including consecutive adult patients presenting to the ED at University Hospital Erlangen. Patients completed both SCs, Ada and Symptoma. The primary outcome was the diagnostic accuracy of SCs. In total, 6 blinded independent expert raters classified diagnostic concordance of SC suggestions with the final discharge diagnosis as (1) identical, (2) plausible, or (3) diagnostically different. SC suggestions per patient were additionally classified as safe or potentially life-threatening, and the concordance of Ada’s and physician-based triage category was assessed. Secondary outcomes were SC usability (5-point Likert-scale: 1=very easy to use to 5=very difficult to use) and SC acceptance net promoter score (NPS).

Results
A total of 450 patients completed the study between April and November 2021. The most common chief complaint was chest pain (160/437, 37%). The identical diagnosis was ranked first (or within the top 5 diagnoses) by Ada and Symptoma in 14% (59/437; 27%, 117/437) and 4% (16/437; 13%, 55/437) of patients, respectively. An identical or plausible diagnosis was ranked first (or within the top 5 diagnoses) by Ada and Symptoma in 58% (253/437; 75%, 329/437) and 38% (164/437; 64%, 281/437) of patients, respectively. Ada and Symptoma did not suggest potentially life-threatening diagnoses in 13% (56/437) and 14% (61/437) of patients, respectively. Ada correctly triaged, undertriaged, and overtriaged 34% (149/437), 13% (58/437), and 53% (230/437) of patients, respectively. A total of 88% (385/437) and 78% (342/437) of participants rated Ada and Symptoma as very easy or easy to use, respectively. Ada’s NPS was –34 (55% [239/437] detractors; 21% [93/437] promoters) and Symptoma’s NPS was –47 (63% [275/437] detractors and 16% [70/437]) promoters.

Conclusions
Ada demonstrated a higher diagnostic accuracy than Symptoma, and substantially more patients would recommend Ada and assessed Ada as easy to use. The high number of unrecognized potentially life-threatening diagnoses by both SCs and inappropriate triage advice by Ada was alarming. Overall, the trustworthiness of SC recommendations appears questionable. SC authorization should necessitate rigorous clinical evaluation studies to prevent misdiagnoses, fatal triage advice, and misuse of scarce medical resources.

Trial Registration
German Register of Clinical Trials DRKS00024830; https://drks.de/search/en/trial/DRKS00024830