Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2012 Feb;27(2):213-9.
doi: 10.1007/s11606-011-1804-8.

Differential diagnosis generators: an evaluation of currently available computer programs

William F Bond  1 , Linda M Schwartz, Kevin R Weaver, Donald Levick, Michael Giuliano, Mark L Graber
Affiliations
Review

Differential diagnosis generators: an evaluation of currently available computer programs

William F Bond et al. J Gen Intern Med. 2012 Feb.

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. CRICO Harvard Risk Management Foundation. High Risk Areas: 26% of claims are in the category of diagnosis. Accessed May 30th, 2011, at http://www.rmf.harvard.edu/high-risk-areas.
    1. 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. doi: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2010.00729.x. - DOI - PubMed
    1. 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. - PubMed
    1. 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/. - PubMed
    1. Schiff GD, Bates DW. Can Electronic Clinical Documentation Help Prevent Diagnostic Errors? N Engl J Med. 2010;362(12):1066–1069. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp0911734. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources