05). This prospective multicenter study showed that KABISA TRAVEL performed as well as travel physicians in diagnosing febrile illnesses in returning travelers. Its diagnostic accuracy reached almost 90% of the challenged cases when considering the top five ranking list. In addition, KABISA TRAVEL was perceived as helpful in suggesting further investigations and final diagnoses in a sizeable

proportion of the cases, in particular when the diagnosis was not immediately clear. Also, in the majority of the cases, the tutor asked for additional information before providing a final ranking with sufficient probability. The high number of malaria cases in our study might be explained by the high proportion of hospitalized patients. Even if no single clinical C59 wnt molecular weight or biological feature has good sensitivity and specificity to predict malaria in febrile patients,13,14 malaria was rarely missed both by clinicians and KABISA AT9283 TRAVEL in our study. Comparison of the most frequent diagnosis with other published studies is biased by the definition of diagnoses and by the selection criteria: O’Brien studied only hospitalized patients, Ansart only outpatients, Bottieaux and Wilson mixed populations (27 and

26% hospitalized, respectively).3,9,13,15 Malaria was the most common diagnosis (resp. 27, 19.9, 27, and 21%), followed by respiratory track infection (24, 7.4, 10.5, and 14%), and gastroenteritis (14, 18.4, 7.1, and 15%). The results of our study are not really different for the latter two, except for the high prevalence of malaria which is uncommon, especially the high proportion of nonfalciparum malaria. The high proportion of dengue might be because of the worldwide increase over the last decade.16,17 Most missed diagnoses were because of nonspecific case presentation. KABISA was less well performing Fludarabine than clinicians. Although the numbers are equal, the balance of suggested serious and treatable diseases seems rather favorable for clinicians. Also here, we should state that KABISA only gives hints, during the initial workup, and is not a final

decider. Every session ends with this warning. Several limitations must be mentioned. First, no public call was made for this study; only the institution where the system has been developed and other centers with formerly existing links took part in this investigation. Second, we cannot be sure that all cases were prospectively entered in the KABISA TRAVEL within 36 hours after the first clinical contact. As the electronic report files were not locked, also some modifications might have been made a posteriori by the physicians before sending them. Third, it is also possible that not all eligible cases who presented in each center during the study period have been actually included, and it is possible as well that some selection of cases had occurred, favoring, for example, unusual cases or typical tropical cases. To which extent it has impacted on the performances of both competitors is however difficult to quantify.