手機(jī)APP及各大網(wǎng)站是否可以取代醫(yī)生

There's a warning out today for those who go onlineor to apps to figure out why they have an upsettummy or nagging cough or occasional chest pain.Symptom checkers are accurate only about half ofthe time.

很多人胃不舒服、咳嗽或者偶爾胸口疼痛時會上網(wǎng)咨詢或者訴諸于各類應(yīng)用，對此我們提出警告。因為這些工具能精確檢查癥狀的幾率只有50%。

The finding is from a Harvard Medical School studythat reviewed 23 sites. One third listed the correctdiagnosis as the first option for patients. Dr. AteevMehrotra, one of the study's authors, urges patients to be cautious when using these tools.

此項發(fā)現(xiàn)源于哈佛醫(yī)學(xué)院的研究，該研究對23個網(wǎng)址進(jìn)行了檢查。三分之一的網(wǎng)站能夠提供正確的診斷，作為患者的首選療法。該研究的作者只有Ateev Mehrotra醫(yī)生，警告患者使用這些工具時要謹(jǐn)慎。

About a third of U.S. adults use the sites in place of going to the doctor. Mehrotra says, theseonline tools are about as accurate as the call-in lines offered by many physician groups. "

美國約有三分之一的成年在使用這些網(wǎng)站，而不是去看醫(yī)生。Mehrotra 表示這些網(wǎng)絡(luò)工具與很多醫(yī)師提供的電話服務(wù)幾乎一樣準(zhǔn)確。

The diagnosis accuracy rate for physicians is 85 to 90 percent. But Jason Maude says he doesnot want a Web versus doctor showdown.

醫(yī)師診斷正確率為85%至90%。但是Jason Maude表示并不希望網(wǎng)絡(luò)跟醫(yī)生之間一決雌雄。

"The whole point is not to set the patient against the doctor or replace the doctor, but tomake the patient much better informed and to ask the doctor much better questions, andthen together they should do a much better job," he says.

他表示：“關(guān)鍵不是讓患者與醫(yī)生相互對立，或者換掉醫(yī)生，而是要患者了解更多信息以便向醫(yī)生咨詢更好的問題，這樣才能達(dá)到最好的效果。

Isabel ranked well in the study, showing the correct answer more than 40 percent of the time inthe first diagnosis. Those high results, Maude says, may be because the site lets patients typein their own description of symptoms. They might describe a "tummy ache" or "stomachcramps" rather than the more clinical choice of "abdominal pain" used by many onlinesymptom checker tools. And Isabel asks just two or three questions before patients describetheir problem, as compared to sites that ask patients to click through 20 questions .

網(wǎng)站Isabel在該項研究中的排名很好，初診時給出正確答案的概率為40%。Maude表示，正確率高可能是因為患者可在該網(wǎng)站輸入對癥狀的描述。患者可以輸入“肚子疼或者“胃部痙攣，而不是很多癥狀檢測工具使用的“腹部疼痛。此外，患者對自己的癥狀進(jìn)行描述之前，Isabel只向患者提問兩三個問題，而其他網(wǎng)站則設(shè)定了20個問題。

Clarifying how and why patients use these tools is critical, say the study's authors. They couldreduce unnecessary office visits or inform patients as they talk with their doctors. But forsome, the tools may encourage people to seek unnecessary care.

該項研究的作者表示，理清患者使用這類工具的方式和原因，非常重要。這類工具能夠減少不必要的尋醫(yī)就診，患者與醫(yī)生交談的過程中也能獲取更多信息。但對于一些人來說，這類工具可能會讓人們尋求不必要的醫(yī)療護(hù)理。

Mehrotra says patients used symptom checkers more than 100 million times last year, a factthat may stun some physicians. "While most doctors know patients are going to the Internet tosearch for medical advice, in terms of these symptom checkers.I've been surprised that few ofmy colleagues even knew they existed," he says.

Mehrotra 表示，很多患者去年使用病癥檢查工具的次數(shù)超過了一億次，這讓很多內(nèi)科醫(yī)生都大吃一驚。他表示：“雖然很多醫(yī)生都知道患者會向網(wǎng)絡(luò)尋求醫(yī)療建議，我吃驚的是，我的同事中很少有人知道這些網(wǎng)站和應(yīng)用的存在。

There's a warning out today for those who go onlineor to apps to figure out why they have an upsettummy or nagging cough or occasional chest pain.Symptom checkers are accurate only about half ofthe time.

很多人胃不舒服、咳嗽或者偶爾胸口疼痛時會上網(wǎng)咨詢或者訴諸于各類應(yīng)用，對此我們提出警告。因為這些工具能精確檢查癥狀的幾率只有50%。

The finding is from a Harvard Medical School studythat reviewed 23 sites. One third listed the correctdiagnosis as the first option for patients. Dr. AteevMehrotra, one of the study's authors, urges patients to be cautious when using these tools.

此項發(fā)現(xiàn)源于哈佛醫(yī)學(xué)院的研究，該研究對23個網(wǎng)址進(jìn)行了檢查。三分之一的網(wǎng)站能夠提供正確的診斷，作為患者的首選療法。該研究的作者只有Ateev Mehrotra醫(yī)生，警告患者使用這些工具時要謹(jǐn)慎。

About a third of U.S. adults use the sites in place of going to the doctor. Mehrotra says, theseonline tools are about as accurate as the call-in lines offered by many physician groups. "

美國約有三分之一的成年在使用這些網(wǎng)站，而不是去看醫(yī)生。Mehrotra 表示這些網(wǎng)絡(luò)工具與很多醫(yī)師提供的電話服務(wù)幾乎一樣準(zhǔn)確。

The diagnosis accuracy rate for physicians is 85 to 90 percent. But Jason Maude says he doesnot want a Web versus doctor showdown.

醫(yī)師診斷正確率為85%至90%。但是Jason Maude表示并不希望網(wǎng)絡(luò)跟醫(yī)生之間一決雌雄。

"The whole point is not to set the patient against the doctor or replace the doctor, but tomake the patient much better informed and to ask the doctor much better questions, andthen together they should do a much better job," he says.

他表示：“關(guān)鍵不是讓患者與醫(yī)生相互對立，或者換掉醫(yī)生，而是要患者了解更多信息以便向醫(yī)生咨詢更好的問題，這樣才能達(dá)到最好的效果。

Isabel ranked well in the study, showing the correct answer more than 40 percent of the time inthe first diagnosis. Those high results, Maude says, may be because the site lets patients typein their own description of symptoms. They might describe a "tummy ache" or "stomachcramps" rather than the more clinical choice of "abdominal pain" used by many onlinesymptom checker tools. And Isabel asks just two or three questions before patients describetheir problem, as compared to sites that ask patients to click through 20 questions .

網(wǎng)站Isabel在該項研究中的排名很好，初診時給出正確答案的概率為40%。Maude表示，正確率高可能是因為患者可在該網(wǎng)站輸入對癥狀的描述。患者可以輸入“肚子疼或者“胃部痙攣，而不是很多癥狀檢測工具使用的“腹部疼痛。此外，患者對自己的癥狀進(jìn)行描述之前，Isabel只向患者提問兩三個問題，而其他網(wǎng)站則設(shè)定了20個問題。

Clarifying how and why patients use these tools is critical, say the study's authors. They couldreduce unnecessary office visits or inform patients as they talk with their doctors. But forsome, the tools may encourage people to seek unnecessary care.

該項研究的作者表示，理清患者使用這類工具的方式和原因，非常重要。這類工具能夠減少不必要的尋醫(yī)就診，患者與醫(yī)生交談的過程中也能獲取更多信息。但對于一些人來說，這類工具可能會讓人們尋求不必要的醫(yī)療護(hù)理。

Mehrotra says patients used symptom checkers more than 100 million times last year, a factthat may stun some physicians. "While most doctors know patients are going to the Internet tosearch for medical advice, in terms of these symptom checkers.I've been surprised that few ofmy colleagues even knew they existed," he says.

Mehrotra 表示，很多患者去年使用病癥檢查工具的次數(shù)超過了一億次，這讓很多內(nèi)科醫(yī)生都大吃一驚。他表示：“雖然很多醫(yī)生都知道患者會向網(wǎng)絡(luò)尋求醫(yī)療建議，我吃驚的是，我的同事中很少有人知道這些網(wǎng)站和應(yīng)用的存在。