Background Automated medical history–taking devices (AMHTDs) are emerging tools with the potential to increase the quality of medical consultations by providing physicians with an exhaustive, high-quality, standardized anamnesis and differential diagnosis. Objective This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of an AMHTD to obtain an accurate differential diagnosis in an outpatient service. Methods We conducted a pilot randomized controlled trial involving 59 patients presenting to an emergency outpatient unit and suffering from various conditions affecting the limbs, the back, and the chest wall. Resident physicians were randomized into 2 groups, one assisted by the AMHTD and one without access to the device. For each patient, physicians were asked to establish an exhaustive differential diagnosis based on the anamnesis and clinical examination. In the intervention group, residents read the AMHTD report before performing the anamnesis. In both the groups, a senior physician had to establish a differential diagnosis, considered as the gold standard, independent of the resident’s opinion and AMHTD report. Results A total of 29 patients were included in the intervention group and 30 in the control group. Differential diagnosis accuracy was higher in the intervention group (mean 75%, SD 26%) than in the control group (mean 59%, SD 31%; P=.01). Subgroup analysis showed a between-group difference of 3% (83% [17/21]-80% [14/17]) for low complexity cases (1-2 differential diagnoses possible) in favor of the AMHTD (P=.76), 31% (87% [13/15]-56% [18/33]) for intermediate complexity (3 differential diagnoses; P=.02), and 24% (63% [34/54]-39% [14/35]) for high complexity (4-5 differential diagnoses; P=.08). Physicians in the intervention group (mean 4.3, SD 2) had more years of clinical practice compared with the control group (mean 5.5, SD 2; P=.03). Differential diagnosis accuracy was negatively correlated to case complexity (r=0.41; P=.001) and the residents’ years of practice (r=0.04; P=.72). The AMHTD was able to determine 73% (SD 30%) of correct differential diagnoses. Patient satisfaction was good (4.3/5), and 26 of 29 patients (90%) considered that they were able to accurately describe their symptomatology. In 8 of 29 cases (28%), residents considered that the AMHTD helped to establish the differential diagnosis. Conclusions The AMHTD allowed physicians to make more accurate differential diagnoses, particularly in complex cases. This could be explained not only by the ability of the AMHTD to make the right diagnoses, but also by the exhaustive anamnesis provided.

Background The SARS-CoV2 virus has been an emerging virus since December 2019 and is the cause of a global pandemic whose clinical manifestations extend far beyond respiratory disease. Case summary A patient with severe COVID 19 respiratory infection, carrying a mechanical mitral valve and under anticoagulation, was admitted in our cardiology department because of a new atrial fibrillation, which turned out to be related to thrombosis of the mitral mechanical valve. Conclusion The pro-coagulant effect of the SARS-CoV2 virus does not spare patients at risk of thrombosis, even under effective anticoagulation. In patients with mechanical valves under vitamin K antagonist treatment, there is a high risk of thrombus formation. The treatment is based on thrombolysis by therapeutic anticoagulation, fibrinolysis or surgery depending on the size, composition of thrombus and clinical manifestation.

BACKGROUND Automated medical history–taking devices (AMHTDs) are emerging tools with the potential to increase the quality of medical consultations by providing physicians with an exhaustive, high-quality, standardized anamnesis and differential diagnosis. OBJECTIVE This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of an AMHTD to obtain an accurate differential diagnosis in an outpatient service. METHODS We conducted a pilot randomized controlled trial involving 59 patients presenting to an emergency outpatient unit and suffering from various conditions affecting the limbs, the back, and the chest wall. Resident physicians were randomized into 2 groups, one assisted by the AMHTD and one without access to the device. For each patient, physicians were asked to establish an exhaustive differential diagnosis based on the anamnesis and clinical examination. In the intervention group, residents read the AMHTD report before performing the anamnesis. In both the groups, a senior physician had to establish a differential diagnosis, considered as the gold standard, independent of the resident’s opinion and AMHTD report. RESULTS A total of 29 patients were included in the intervention group and 30 in the control group. Differential diagnosis accuracy was higher in the intervention group (mean 75%, SD 26%) than in the control group (mean 59%, SD 31%; <italic>P</italic>=.01). Subgroup analysis showed a between-group difference of 3% (83% [17/21]-80% [14/17]) for low complexity cases (1-2 differential diagnoses possible) in favor of the AMHTD (<italic>P</italic>=.76), 31% (87% [13/15]-56% [18/33]) for intermediate complexity (3 differential diagnoses; <italic>P</italic>=.02), and 24% (63% [34/54]-39% [14/35]) for high complexity (4-5 differential diagnoses; <italic>P</italic>=.08). Physicians in the intervention group (mean 4.3, SD 2) had more years of clinical practice compared with the control group (mean 5.5, SD 2; <italic>P</italic>=.03). Differential diagnosis accuracy was negatively correlated to case complexity (<italic>r</italic>=0.41; <italic>P</italic>=.001) and the residents’ years of practice (<italic>r</italic>=0.04; <italic>P</italic>=.72). The AMHTD was able to determine 73% (SD 30%) of correct differential diagnoses. Patient satisfaction was good (4.3/5), and 26 of 29 patients (90%) considered that they were able to accurately describe their symptomatology. In 8 of 29 cases (28%), residents considered that the AMHTD helped to establish the differential diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS The AMHTD allowed physicians to make more accurate differential diagnoses, particularly in complex cases. This could be explained not only by the ability of the AMHTD to make the right diagnoses, but also by the exhaustive anamnesis provided.