Symptom checkers are increasingly used to assess new symptoms and navigate the health care system. The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of an artificial intelligence (AI)-based symptom checker (Ada) and physicians regarding the presence/absence of an inflammatory rheumatic disease (IRD). In this survey study, German-speaking physicians with prior rheumatology working experience were asked to determine IRD presence/absence and suggest diagnoses for 20 different real-world patient vignettes, which included only basic health and symptom-related medical history. IRD detection rate and suggested diagnoses of participants and Ada were compared to the gold standard, the final rheumatologists’ diagnosis, reported on the discharge summary report. A total of 132 vignettes were completed by 33 physicians (mean rheumatology working experience 8.8 (SD 7.1) years). Ada’s diagnostic accuracy (IRD) was significantly higher compared to physicians (70 vs 54%, p = 0.002) according to top diagnosis. Ada listed the correct diagnosis more often compared to physicians (54 vs 32%, p < 0.001) as top diagnosis as well as among the top 3 diagnoses (59 vs 42%, p < 0.001). Work experience was not related to suggesting the correct diagnosis or IRD status. Confined to basic health and symptom-related medical history, the diagnostic accuracy of physicians was lower compared to an AI-based symptom checker. These results highlight the potential of using symptom checkers early during the patient journey and importance of access to complete and sufficient patient information to establish a correct diagnosis.

Background: The use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) allows for patient-centered, measurable, and transparent care. Electronic PROs (ePROs) have many benefits and hold great potential to improve current usage of PROs, yet limited evidence exists regarding their acceptance, usage, and barriers among rheumatologists. Objective: This study aims to evaluate the current level of acceptance, usage, and barriers among German rheumatologists regarding the use of ePROs. The importance of different ePRO features for rheumatologists was investigated. Additionally, the most frequently used PROs for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) were identified. Methods: Data were collected via an online survey consisting of 18 questions. The survey was completed by members of the Working Group Young Rheumatology of the German Society for Rheumatology (Arbeitsgemeinschaft Junge Rheumatologie der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Rheumatologie [DGRh]) at the 2019 annual DGRh conference. Only members currently working in clinical adult rheumatology were eligible to complete the survey. Results: A total of 119 rheumatologists completed the survey, of which 107 (89.9%) reported collecting PROs in routine practice and 28 (25.5%) already used ePROs. Additionally, 44% (43/97) were planning to switch to ePROs in the near future. The most commonly cited reason for not switching was the unawareness of suitable software solutions. Respondents were asked to rate the features of ePROs on a scale of 0 to 100 (0=unimportant, 100=important). The most important features were automatic score calculation and display (mean 77.50) and simple data transfer to medical reports (mean 76.90). When asked about PROs in RA, the respondents listed pain, morning stiffness, and patient global assessment as the most frequently used PROs. Conclusions: The potential of ePROs is widely seen and there is great interest in them. Despite this, only a minority of physicians use ePROs, and the main reason for not implementing them was cited as the unawareness of suitable software solutions. Developers, patients, and rheumatologists should work closely together to help realize the full potential of ePROs and ensure a seamless integration into clinical practice.

Introduction: Whole-body cryotherapy (WBC) has shown to be beneficial in the treatment of fibromyalgia (FM). There is cumulative evidence that cytokines play a crucial role in FM. It’s unknown whether clinical effects of WBC can be demonstrated at the molecular level and how long the effects last. Methods: We compared effects of serial WBC (6 sessions (− 130 °C in 6 weeks) in FM patients and healthy controls (HC). Primary outcome was the change in pain level (visual analogue scale 0–100 mm) after 6 sessions. Secondary outcomes were a change in disease activity (revised Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire) and pain after 3 sessions and 3 months after discontinued therapy and in cytokine levels (interleukin (IL-)1, IL-6, tumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α) and IL-10). The patients’ opinions on the satisfaction, effectiveness and significance of WBC were evaluated. Results: Twenty-three FM patients and 30 HC were enrolled. WBC resulted in a significant reduction in pain and disease activity after 3 and 6 sessions. No clinical benefit could be measured 3 months after discontinued treatment. Overall, probands were satisfied with WBC and considered WBC to be important and effective. FM patients had significantly different levels of IL-1, IL-6, TNF-α and IL-10 at each reading point compared to HC. Levels of IL-1, IL-6 and IL-10 were significantly altered over time in FM patients. Compared to HC FM patients showed a significantly different response of IL1, − 6 and − 10 to WBC. Conclusion: Serial WBC is a fast acting and effective treatment for FM. Proven effects of WBC may be explained by changes in cytokines.