Search

Background: The diagnosis of inflammatory rheumatic diseases (IRDs) is often delayed due to unspecific symptoms and a shortage of rheumatologists. Digital diagnostic decision support systems (DDSSs) have the potential to expedite diagnosis and help patients navigate the health care system more efficiently., Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of a mobile artificial intelligence (AI)-based symptom checker (Ada) and a web-based self-referral tool (Rheport) regarding IRDs., Methods: A prospective, multicenter, open-label, crossover randomized controlled trial was conducted with patients newly presenting to 3 rheumatology centers. Participants were randomly assigned to complete a symptom assessment using either Ada or Rheport. The primary outcome was the correct identification of IRDs by the DDSSs, defined as the presence of any IRD in the list of suggested diagnoses by Ada or achieving a prespecified threshold score with Rheport. The gold standard was the diagnosis made by rheumatologists., Results: A total of 600 patients were included, among whom 214 (35.7%) were diagnosed with an IRD. Most frequent IRD was rheumatoid arthritis with 69 (11.5%) patients. Rheport's disease suggestion and Ada's top 1 (D1) and top 5 (D5) disease suggestions demonstrated overall diagnostic accuracies of 52%, 63%, and 58%, respectively, for IRDs. Rheport showed a sensitivity of 62% and a specificity of 47% for IRDs. Ada's D1 and D5 disease suggestions showed a sensitivity of 52% and 66%, respectively, and a specificity of 68% and 54%, respectively, concerning IRDs. Ada's diagnostic accuracy regarding individual diagnoses was heterogenous, and Ada performed considerably better in identifying rheumatoid arthritis in comparison to other diagnoses (D1: 42%; D5: 64%). The Cohen κ statistic of Rheport for agreement on any rheumatic disease diagnosis with Ada D1 was 0.15 (95% CI 0.08-0.18) and with Ada D5 was 0.08 (95% CI 0.00-0.16), indicating poor agreement for the presence of any rheumatic disease between the 2 DDSSs., Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the largest comparative DDSS trial with actual use of DDSSs by patients. The diagnostic accuracies of both DDSSs for IRDs were not promising in this high-prevalence patient population. DDSSs may lead to a misuse of scarce health care resources. Our results underscore the need for stringent regulation and drastic improvements to ensure the safety and efficacy of DDSSs., Trial Registration: German Register of Clinical Trials DRKS00017642; https://drks.de/search/en/trial/DRKS00017642., (©Johannes Knitza, Koray Tascilar, Franziska Fuchs, Jacob Mohn, Sebastian Kuhn, Daniela Bohr, Felix Muehlensiepen, Christina Bergmann, Hannah Labinsky, Harriet Morf, Elizabeth Araujo, Matthias Englbrecht, Wolfgang Vorbrüggen, Cay-Benedict von der Decken, Stefan Kleinert, Andreas Ramming, Jörg H W Distler, Peter Bartz-Bazzanella, Nicolas Vuillerme, Georg Schett, Martin Welcker, Axel Hueber. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 23.07.2024.)

Early and effective discrimination (triage) of patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases (IRD) and other diseases (non-IRD) is essential for successful treatment and preventing damage. The aim of this study was to investigate diagnostic delays and pre-diagnosis treatment in patients newly presenting to rheumatology outpatient clinics. A total of 600 patients newly presenting to one university hospital and two non-academic centers were included. Time from onset of symptoms to rheumatology consultation "total delay" as well as medical treatment before consultation were recorded. Median time from symptom onset to rheumatologist appointment (total delay) was 30 weeks. Median time to online search, first physician appointment request and first physician appointment was 2, 4 and 5 weeks, respectively. Total delay was significantly shorter for IRD patients compared to non-IRD patients, 26 vs 35 weeks (p = 0.007). Only 17.7% of all patients and 22.9% of IRD patients had a delay of less than 12 weeks. Total delay was significantly lower in patients seen in non-academic centers compared to the university center, 20 vs 50 weeks (p < 0.0001). 32.2% of IRD patients received medical treatment that eased their symptoms prior to the rheumatology appointment. These findings highlight the persistent diagnostic delays in rheumatology; however, they also suggest that current triage strategies effectively lead to earlier appointments for IRD patients. Improvement of triage methods and pre-diagnosis treatment could decrease overall burden of disease in IRD patients., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Introduction: In order to successfully integrate telemedicine into the daily routine of rheumatology, both the patient's and the physician's perspective are important. For this purpose, a detailed study by means of a web-based survey was conducted by the Working Group Young Rheumatology (AGJR) of the German Society for Rheumatology (DGRh) and the German Rheumatism League National Association. By means of subgroup analysis of the data regarding video consultation, the aim was now to find out which requirements and wishes patients and physicians have for video consultations., Methods: The prospective survey was distributed via social media, QR code and email. Descriptive statistics and regression analysis related to video consultation were performed and correlations were shown., Results: The data indicated positive attitudes toward video consultation on the part of both patients (n = 299) and rheumatologists (n = 129). A correlation between age and positive opinion of the video consultation was found among the patients (r = 0.161, p = 0.006), especially among female patients a positive approval of the video consultation was found with increasing age (r = 0.244, p < 0.001 to male patients: r = -0.190, p = 0.145). Regarding the travelling time to the treating rheumatologist, male patients found the video consultation more attractive with increasing travelling time (r = 0.229, p = 0.078). With respect to the wishes of patients and physicians, video consultation should be used primarily for follow-up or emergency appointments. Video consultation for initial appointments, on the other hand, was very rarely mentioned., Conclusion: During the COVID 19 pandemic, video consultation was increasingly popular among rheumatology patients as well as among rheumatologists., (© 2021. Springer Medizin Verlag GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature.)

Introduction: An increasing number of digital tools, including dedicated diagnostic decision support systems (DDSS) exist to better assess new symptoms and understand when and where to seek medical care. The aim of this study was to evaluate patient's previous online assessment experiences and to compare the acceptability, usability, usefulness and potential impact of artificial intelligence (AI)-based symptom checker (Ada) and an online questionnaire-based self-referral tool (Rheport)., Materials and Methods: Patients newly presenting to three German secondary rheumatology outpatient clinics were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to complete consecutively Ada or Rheport in a prospective non-blinded multicentre controlled crossover randomized trial. DDSS completion time was recorded by local study personnel and perceptions on DDSS and previous online assessment were collected through a self-completed study questionnaire, including usability measured with the validated System Usability Scale (SUS)., Results: 600 patients (median age 52 years, 418 women) were included. 277/600 (46.2%) of patients used an online search engine prior to the appointment. The median time patients spent assessing symptoms was 180, 7, and 8 min, respectively using online using search engines, Ada and Rheport. 111/275 (40.4%), 266/600 (44.3%) and 395/600 (65.8%) of patients rated the respective symptom assessment as very helpful or helpful, using online search engines, Ada and Rheport, respectively. Usability of both diagnostic decision support systems (DDSS) was "good" with a significantly higher mean SUS score (SD) of Rheport 77.1/100 (16.0) compared to Ada 74.4/100 (16.8), ( p < 0.0001). In male patients, usability of Rheport was rated higher than Ada ( p = 0.02) and the usability rating of older (52 years ≥) patients of both DDSS was lower than in younger participants ( p = 0.005). Both effects were independent of each other. 440/600 (73.3%) and 475/600 (79.2%) of the patients would recommend Ada and Rheport to friends and other patients, respectively., Conclusion: In summary, patients increasingly assess their symptoms independently online, however only a minority used dedicated symptom assessment websites or DDSS. DDSS, such as Ada an Rheport are easy to use, well accepted among patients with musculoskeletal complaints and could replace online search engines for patient symptom assessment, potentially saving time and increasing helpfulness., Competing Interests: JK and has received research support from Novartis Pharma GmbH. Qinum and RheumaDatenRhePort developed and hold rights for Rheport. WV, PB-B, and MW are members of RheumaDatenRhePort. WV and PB-B were involved in the development of Rheport. JK is a member of the scientific board of RheumaDatenRhePort. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Knitza, Muehlensiepen, Ignatyev, Fuchs, Mohn, Simon, Kleyer, Fagni, Boeltz, Morf, Bergmann, Labinsky, Vorbrüggen, Ramming, Distler, Bartz-Bazzanella, Vuillerme, Schett, Welcker and Hueber.)

Background: Timely diagnosis and treatment are essential in the effective management of inflammatory rheumatic diseases (IRDs). Symptom checkers (SCs) promise to accelerate diagnosis, reduce misdiagnoses, and guide patients more effectively through the health care system. Although SCs are increasingly used, there exists little supporting evidence., Objective: To assess the diagnostic accuracy, patient-perceived usability, and acceptance of two SCs: (1) Ada and (2) Rheport., Methods: Patients newly presenting to a German secondary rheumatology outpatient clinic were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to complete Ada or Rheport and consecutively the respective other SCs in a prospective non-blinded controlled randomized crossover trial. The primary outcome was the accuracy of the SCs regarding the diagnosis of an IRD compared to the physicians' diagnosis as the gold standard. The secondary outcomes were patient-perceived usability, acceptance, and time to complete the SC., Results: In this interim analysis, the first 164 patients who completed the study were analyzed. 32.9% (54/164) of the study subjects were diagnosed with an IRD. Rheport showed a sensitivity of 53.7% and a specificity of 51.8% for IRDs. Ada's top 1 (D1) and top 5 disease suggestions (D5) showed a sensitivity of 42.6% and 53.7% and a specificity of 63.6% and 54.5% concerning IRDs, respectively. The correct diagnosis of the IRD patients was within the Ada D1 and D5 suggestions in 16.7% (9/54) and 25.9% (14/54), respectively. The median System Usability Scale (SUS) score of Ada and Rheport was 75.0/100 and 77.5/100, respectively. The median completion time for both Ada and Rheport was 7.0 and 8.5 min, respectively. Sixty-four percent and 67.1% would recommend using Ada and Rheport to friends and other patients, respectively., Conclusions: While SCs are well accepted among patients, their diagnostic accuracy is limited to date., Trial Registration: DRKS.de, DRKS00017642 . Registered on 23 July 2019.

Background: The development and potential of artificial intelligence (AI) is remarkable. Its application in all medical disciplines, including rheumatology, is attracting attention. To what extent AI is already used in clinical routine in rheumatology is unknown. In addition, the perceived barriers, potentials, and expectations regarding AI by rheumatologists have not yet been studied. Objectives: To examine the current usage and perceived barriers and facilitators of AI, including large language models (LLMs), among rheumatologists. Design: National, observational, non-interventional, and cross-sectional web-based study. Methods: A web-based survey was developed by the Working Group Young Rheumatology (AGJR) of the German Society for Rheumatology. The survey was distributed at the Congress of the German Society for Rheumatology and via social media, QR code, and email from August 30 until November 4, 2023. Results: Responses from 172 rheumatologists (55% female; mean age 43 years) were analyzed. The majority stated that they did not previously use AI (73%) in their daily practice. Eighty-eight percent of rheumatologists rated their AI knowledge as low to intermediate and 84% would welcome dedicated training on LLMs. The majority of rheumatologists anticipated AI implementation to improve patient care (60%) and reduce daily workload (62%). Especially for diagnosis (73%), writing medical reports (70%), and data analysis (70%), rheumatologists reported a potential positive benefit of AI. Main AI concerns addressed the responsibility for medical decisions (64%) and data security (58%). Conclusion: Overall, the results indicate that rheumatologists currently have little AI knowledge and make very little use of AI in clinical routine. However, the majority of rheumatologists anticipate positive AI effects and would welcome increased AI implementation and dedicated training programs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The correction notice in the journal "Rheumatology International" addresses an error in the numbering of figures in an article discussing digital health applications for treating back pain in rheumatic patients. The corrected version of the article can be accessed online, and the correction has been made to accurately reflect the content. The correction was reported by multiple authors involved in the study. [Extracted from the article]