Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of General Internal Medicine 2/2012

01-02-2012 | Reviews

Differential Diagnosis Generators: an Evaluation of Currently Available Computer Programs

Authors: William F. Bond, MD, MS, Linda M. Schwartz, MDE, Kevin R. Weaver, DO, Donald Levick, MD, MBA, Michael Giuliano, MD, MEd, MHPE, Mark L. Graber, MD

Published in: Journal of General Internal Medicine | Issue 2/2012

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Differential diagnosis (DDX) generators are computer programs that generate a DDX based on various clinical data.

Objective

We identified evaluation criteria through consensus, applied these criteria to describe the features of DDX generators, and tested performance using cases from the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM©) and the Medical Knowledge Self Assessment Program (MKSAP©).

Methods

We first identified evaluation criteria by consensus. Then we performed Google® and Pubmed searches to identify DDX generators. To be included, DDX generators had to do the following: generate a list of potential diagnoses rather than text or article references; rank or indicate critical diagnoses that need to be considered or eliminated; accept at least two signs, symptoms or disease characteristics; provide the ability to compare the clinical presentations of diagnoses; and provide diagnoses in general medicine. The evaluation criteria were then applied to the included DDX generators. Lastly, the performance of the DDX generators was tested with findings from 20 test cases. Each case performance was scored one through five, with a score of five indicating presence of the exact diagnosis. Mean scores and confidence intervals were calculated.

Key Results

Twenty three programs were initially identified and four met the inclusion criteria. These four programs were evaluated using the consensus criteria, which included the following: input method; mobile access; filtering and refinement; lab values, medications, and geography as diagnostic factors; evidence based medicine (EBM) content; references; and drug information content source. The mean scores (95% Confidence Interval) from performance testing on a five-point scale were Isabel© 3.45 (2.53, 4.37), DxPlain® 3.45 (2.63–4.27), Diagnosis Pro® 2.65 (1.75–3.55) and PEPID™ 1.70 (0.71–2.69). The number of exact matches paralleled the mean score finding.

Conclusions

Consensus criteria for DDX generator evaluation were developed. Application of these criteria as well as performance testing supports the use of DxPlain® and Isabel© over the other currently available DDX generators.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
2.
go back to reference Brown TW, McCarthy ML, Kelen GD, Levy F. An epidemiologic study of closed emergency department malpractice claims in a national database of physician malpractice insurers. Acad Emerg Med. 2010;17(5):553–560.PubMedCrossRef Brown TW, McCarthy ML, Kelen GD, Levy F. An epidemiologic study of closed emergency department malpractice claims in a national database of physician malpractice insurers. Acad Emerg Med. 2010;17(5):553–560.PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Croskerry P. Clinical cognition and diagnostic error: applications of a dual process model of reasoning Advances In Health Sciences Education. Theory And Practice. 2009;14(Suppl 1):27–35. Croskerry P. Clinical cognition and diagnostic error: applications of a dual process model of reasoning Advances In Health Sciences Education. Theory And Practice. 2009;14(Suppl 1):27–35.
4.
go back to reference Schiff, G. D., Kim, S., Abrams, R., Cosby, K., Lambert, B. L., Elstein, A. S., Hasler, S., et al., Diagnosing Diagnosis Errors: Lessons from a Multi-institutional Collaborative Project. Advances in Patient Safety: From Research to Implementation. Volumes 2, AHRQ Publication Nos. 050021 (Vols 1–4). February 2005. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD. Accessed May 30, 2011, at http://www.ahrq.gov/qual/advances/. Schiff, G. D., Kim, S., Abrams, R., Cosby, K., Lambert, B. L., Elstein, A. S., Hasler, S., et al., Diagnosing Diagnosis Errors: Lessons from a Multi-institutional Collaborative Project. Advances in Patient Safety: From Research to Implementation. Volumes 2, AHRQ Publication Nos. 050021 (Vols 1–4). February 2005. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD. Accessed May 30, 2011, at http://​www.​ahrq.​gov/​qual/​advances/​.
5.
go back to reference Schiff GD, Bates DW. Can Electronic Clinical Documentation Help Prevent Diagnostic Errors? N Engl J Med. 2010;362(12):1066–1069.PubMedCrossRef Schiff GD, Bates DW. Can Electronic Clinical Documentation Help Prevent Diagnostic Errors? N Engl J Med. 2010;362(12):1066–1069.PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Barnett GO, Cimino JJ, Hupp JA, Hoffer EP. DXplain An evolving diagnostic decision-support system. JAMA. 1987;258(1):67–74.PubMedCrossRef Barnett GO, Cimino JJ, Hupp JA, Hoffer EP. DXplain An evolving diagnostic decision-support system. JAMA. 1987;258(1):67–74.PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Berner ES, Webster GD, Shugerman AA, Jackson JR, Algina J, Baker AL, Ball EV, et al. Performance of four computer-based diagnostic systems. N Engl J Med. 1994;330(25):1792–1796.PubMedCrossRef Berner ES, Webster GD, Shugerman AA, Jackson JR, Algina J, Baker AL, Ball EV, et al. Performance of four computer-based diagnostic systems. N Engl J Med. 1994;330(25):1792–1796.PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Kassirer JP. A report card on computer-assisted diagnosis–the grade: C. N Engl J Med. 1994;330(25):1824–1825.PubMedCrossRef Kassirer JP. A report card on computer-assisted diagnosis–the grade: C. N Engl J Med. 1994;330(25):1824–1825.PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Graber ML, Mathew A. Performance of a web-based clinical diagnosis support system for internists. J Gen Intern Med. 2008;23(Suppl 1):37–40.PubMedCrossRef Graber ML, Mathew A. Performance of a web-based clinical diagnosis support system for internists. J Gen Intern Med. 2008;23(Suppl 1):37–40.PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Ramnarayan P, Cronje N, Brown R, Negus R, Coode B, Moss P, Hassan T, et al. Validation of a diagnostic reminder system in emergency medicine: a multi-centre study. Emerg Med J. 2007;24(9):619–624.PubMedCrossRef Ramnarayan P, Cronje N, Brown R, Negus R, Coode B, Moss P, Hassan T, et al. Validation of a diagnostic reminder system in emergency medicine: a multi-centre study. Emerg Med J. 2007;24(9):619–624.PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Musen, M. A., Shahar, Y. and Shortliffe, E. H., Clinical Decision Support Systems, In: Shortliffe, E. H. and Cimino, J. J. (eds), Biomedical Informatics: Computer Applications in Health Care and New York: Springer, 2006, pp. 698–736. Musen, M. A., Shahar, Y. and Shortliffe, E. H., Clinical Decision Support Systems, In: Shortliffe, E. H. and Cimino, J. J. (eds), Biomedical Informatics: Computer Applications in Health Care and New York: Springer, 2006, pp. 698–736.
12.
go back to reference Wyatt, J. and Spiegelhalter, D., Field trials of medical decision-aids: potential problems and solutions. , Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Computer Application in Medical Care, 1991, pp. 3–7. Wyatt, J. and Spiegelhalter, D., Field trials of medical decision-aids: potential problems and solutions. , Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Computer Application in Medical Care, 1991, pp. 3–7.
13.
go back to reference Kassirer J, Wong J, Kopelman R. Learning Clinical Reasoning. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2009. Kassirer J, Wong J, Kopelman R. Learning Clinical Reasoning. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2009.
14.
go back to reference Datena, S., Lifecom DARES Approach to Problem Based Learning and Improvement (Personal Communication of Unpublished White Paper describing the Lifecom DARES System), 2010. Datena, S., Lifecom DARES Approach to Problem Based Learning and Improvement (Personal Communication of Unpublished White Paper describing the Lifecom DARES System), 2010.
15.
go back to reference Bowen JL. Educational strategies to promote clinical diagnostic reasoning. N Engl J Med. 2006;355(21):2217–2225.PubMedCrossRef Bowen JL. Educational strategies to promote clinical diagnostic reasoning. N Engl J Med. 2006;355(21):2217–2225.PubMedCrossRef
16.
go back to reference Wolpaw T, Papp KK, Bordage G. Using SNAPPS to facilitate the expression of clinical reasoning and uncertainties: a randomized comparison group trial. Acad Med. 2009;84(4):517–524.PubMedCrossRef Wolpaw T, Papp KK, Bordage G. Using SNAPPS to facilitate the expression of clinical reasoning and uncertainties: a randomized comparison group trial. Acad Med. 2009;84(4):517–524.PubMedCrossRef
17.
go back to reference O'Malley PG, Kroenke K, Ritter J, Dy N, Pangaro L. What learners and teachers value most in ambulatory educational encounters: a prospective, qualitative study. Acad Med. 1999;74(2):186–191.PubMedCrossRef O'Malley PG, Kroenke K, Ritter J, Dy N, Pangaro L. What learners and teachers value most in ambulatory educational encounters: a prospective, qualitative study. Acad Med. 1999;74(2):186–191.PubMedCrossRef
18.
go back to reference Graber ML, Tompkins D, Holland JJ. Resources medical students use to derive a differential diagnosis. Med Teach. 2009;31(6):522–527.PubMedCrossRef Graber ML, Tompkins D, Holland JJ. Resources medical students use to derive a differential diagnosis. Med Teach. 2009;31(6):522–527.PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Differential Diagnosis Generators: an Evaluation of Currently Available Computer Programs
Authors
William F. Bond, MD, MS
Linda M. Schwartz, MDE
Kevin R. Weaver, DO
Donald Levick, MD, MBA
Michael Giuliano, MD, MEd, MHPE
Mark L. Graber, MD
Publication date
01-02-2012
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Journal of General Internal Medicine / Issue 2/2012
Print ISSN: 0884-8734
Electronic ISSN: 1525-1497
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-011-1804-8

Other articles of this Issue 2/2012

Journal of General Internal Medicine 2/2012 Go to the issue
Live Webinar | 27-06-2024 | 18:00 (CEST)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Live: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

WHO estimates that half of all patients worldwide are non-adherent to their prescribed medication. The consequences of poor adherence can be catastrophic, on both the individual and population level.

Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.

Prof. Kevin Dolgin
Prof. Florian Limbourg
Prof. Anoop Chauhan
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Obesity Clinical Trial Summary

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.

Developed by: Springer Medicine

Highlights from the ACC 2024 Congress

Year in Review: Pediatric cardiology

Watch Dr. Anne Marie Valente present the last year's highlights in pediatric and congenital heart disease in the official ACC.24 Year in Review session.

Year in Review: Pulmonary vascular disease

The last year's highlights in pulmonary vascular disease are presented by Dr. Jane Leopold in this official video from ACC.24.

Year in Review: Valvular heart disease

Watch Prof. William Zoghbi present the last year's highlights in valvular heart disease from the official ACC.24 Year in Review session.

Year in Review: Heart failure and cardiomyopathies

Watch this official video from ACC.24. Dr. Biykem Bozkurt discusses last year's major advances in heart failure and cardiomyopathies.