The New England Journal of Medicine
e-mail icon  FREE NEJM E-TOC    HOME   |   SUBSCRIBE   |   CURRENT ISSUE   |   PAST ISSUES   |   COLLECTIONS   |    Advanced Search
Sign in | Get NEJM's E-Mail Table of Contents — Free | Subscribe
 
Special Article
PreviousPrevious
Volume 330:1792-1796 June 23, 1994 Number 25
NextNext

Performance of Four Computer-Based Diagnostic Systems
Eta S. Berner, George D. Webster, Alwyn A. Shugerman, James R. Jackson, James Algina, Alfred L. Baker, Eugene V. Ball, C. Glenn Cobbs, Vincent W. Dennis, Eugene P. Frenkel, Leonard D. Hudson, Elliott L. Mancall, Charles E. Rackley, and O. David Taunton

 Sign up for free e-toc
 

This Article
-Full Text

Commentary
-Letters

Tools and Services
-Add to Personal Archive
-Add to Citation Manager
-Notify a Friend
-E-mail When Cited

More Information
-PubMed Citation
ABSTRACT

Background Computer-based diagnostic systems are available commercially, but there has been limited evaluation of their performance. We assessed the diagnostic capabilities of four internal medicine diagnostic systems: Dxplain, Iliad, Meditel, and QMR.

Methods Ten expert clinicians created a set of 105 diagnostically challenging clinical case summaries involving actual patients. Clinical data were entered into each program with the vocabulary provided by the program's developer. Each of the systems produced a ranked list of possible diagnoses for each patient, as did the group of experts. We calculated scores on several performance measures for each computer program.

Results No single computer program scored better than the others on all performance measures. Among all cases and all programs, the proportion of correct diagnoses ranged from 0.52 to 0.71, and the mean proportion of relevant diagnoses ranged from 0.19 to 0.37. On average, less than half the diagnoses on the experts' original list of reasonable diagnoses were suggested by any of the programs. However, each program suggested an average of approximately two additional diagnoses per case that the experts found relevant but had not originally considered.

Conclusions The results provide a profile of the strengths and limitations of these computer programs. The programs should be used by physicians who can identify and use the relevant information and ignore the irrelevant information that can be produced.


Source Information

From the University of Alabama at Birmingham (E.S.B., A.A.S., J.R.J., E.V.B., C.G.C.); InforMed, Inc., St. Davids, Pa. (G.D.W.); the University of Florida, Gainesville (J.A.); the University of Chicago, Chicago (A.L.B.); the Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland (V.W.D.); the University of Texas, Dallas (E.P.F.); the University of Washington, Seattle (L.D.H.); Hahnemann University, Philadelphia (E.L.M.); Georgetown University, Washington, D.C. (C.E.R.); and Baptist Medical Center Montclair, Birmingham, Ala. (O.D.T.).This study was conducted by the Office of Educational Development, University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Medicine, 933 19th St. South, Birmingham, AL 35294-2041, where reprint requests should be addressed to Dr. Berner.

Full Text of this Article


Related Letters:

Computer-Based Diagnostic Systems
Lehmann E. D., Yolton R. L., Berner E. S., Webster G. D., Shugerman A. A.
Extract | Full Text  
N Engl J Med 1994; 331:1023-1024, Oct 13, 1994. Correspondence

This article has been cited by other articles:



HOME  |  SUBSCRIBE  |  SEARCH  |  CURRENT ISSUE  |  PAST ISSUES  |  COLLECTIONS  |  PRIVACY  |  TERMS OF USE  |  HELP  |  beta.nejm.org

Comments and questions? Please contact us.

The New England Journal of Medicine is owned, published, and copyrighted © 2009 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.