Prevalence of symptom exaggeration among North American independent medical evaluation examinees: A systematic review of observational studies.

<h4>Background</h4>Independent medical evaluations (IMEs) are commonly acquired to provide an assessment of impairment; however, these assessments show poor inter-rater reliability. One potential contributor is symptom exaggeration by patients, who may feel pressure to emphasize their le...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Andrea J Darzi, Li Wang, John J Riva, Rami Z Morsi, Rana Charide, Rachel J Couban, Samer G Karam, Kian Torabiardakani, Annie Lok, Shanil Ebrahim, Sheena Bance, Regina Kunz, Gordon H Guyatt, Jason W Busse
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2025-01-01
Series:PLoS ONE
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0324684
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1849424655998255104
author Andrea J Darzi
Li Wang
John J Riva
Rami Z Morsi
Rana Charide
Rachel J Couban
Samer G Karam
Kian Torabiardakani
Annie Lok
Shanil Ebrahim
Sheena Bance
Regina Kunz
Gordon H Guyatt
Jason W Busse
author_facet Andrea J Darzi
Li Wang
John J Riva
Rami Z Morsi
Rana Charide
Rachel J Couban
Samer G Karam
Kian Torabiardakani
Annie Lok
Shanil Ebrahim
Sheena Bance
Regina Kunz
Gordon H Guyatt
Jason W Busse
author_sort Andrea J Darzi
collection DOAJ
description <h4>Background</h4>Independent medical evaluations (IMEs) are commonly acquired to provide an assessment of impairment; however, these assessments show poor inter-rater reliability. One potential contributor is symptom exaggeration by patients, who may feel pressure to emphasize their level of impairment to qualify for incentives. This study explored the prevalence of symptom exaggeration among IME examinees in North America, which if common may represent an important consideration for improving the reliability of IMEs.<h4>Methods</h4>We searched CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE and PsycINFO from inception to July 08, 2024. We included observational studies that used a known-group design or multi-modal determination method. Paired reviewers independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We performed a random-effects model meta-analysis to estimate the overall prevalence of symptom exaggeration and explored potential subgroup effects for sex, age, education, clinical condition, and confidence in the reference standard. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence.<h4>Results</h4>We included 44 studies with 46 cohorts and 9,794 patients. The median of the mean age was 40 (interquartile range [IQR] 38-42). Most cohorts included patients with traumatic brain injuries (n = 31, 67%) or chronic pain (n = 11, 24%). Prevalence of symptom exaggeration across studies ranged from 17% to 67%. We found low certainty evidence suggesting that studies with a greater proportion of women (≥40%) may be associated with higher rates of exaggeration (47%, 95%CI 36-58) vs. studies with a lower proportion of women (<40%) (31%, 95%CI 28-35; test of interaction p = 0.02). Possible explanations include biological differences, greater bodily awareness, or higher rates of negative affectivity. We found no significant subgroup effects for type of clinical condition, confidence in the reference standard, age, or education.<h4>Conclusion</h4>Symptom exaggeration may occur in almost 50% of women and in approximately a third of men undergoing IMEs. The high prevalence of symptom exaggeration among IME attendees provides a compelling rationale for clinical evaluators to formally explore this issue. Future research should establish the reliability and validity of evaluation criteria for symptom exaggeration and develop a structured IME assessment approach.
format Article
id doaj-art-111eded82e50445c872fbdfb7d5f6f3c
institution Kabale University
issn 1932-6203
language English
publishDate 2025-01-01
publisher Public Library of Science (PLoS)
record_format Article
series PLoS ONE
spelling doaj-art-111eded82e50445c872fbdfb7d5f6f3c2025-08-20T03:30:04ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032025-01-01206e032468410.1371/journal.pone.0324684Prevalence of symptom exaggeration among North American independent medical evaluation examinees: A systematic review of observational studies.Andrea J DarziLi WangJohn J RivaRami Z MorsiRana CharideRachel J CoubanSamer G KaramKian TorabiardakaniAnnie LokShanil EbrahimSheena BanceRegina KunzGordon H GuyattJason W Busse<h4>Background</h4>Independent medical evaluations (IMEs) are commonly acquired to provide an assessment of impairment; however, these assessments show poor inter-rater reliability. One potential contributor is symptom exaggeration by patients, who may feel pressure to emphasize their level of impairment to qualify for incentives. This study explored the prevalence of symptom exaggeration among IME examinees in North America, which if common may represent an important consideration for improving the reliability of IMEs.<h4>Methods</h4>We searched CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE and PsycINFO from inception to July 08, 2024. We included observational studies that used a known-group design or multi-modal determination method. Paired reviewers independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We performed a random-effects model meta-analysis to estimate the overall prevalence of symptom exaggeration and explored potential subgroup effects for sex, age, education, clinical condition, and confidence in the reference standard. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence.<h4>Results</h4>We included 44 studies with 46 cohorts and 9,794 patients. The median of the mean age was 40 (interquartile range [IQR] 38-42). Most cohorts included patients with traumatic brain injuries (n = 31, 67%) or chronic pain (n = 11, 24%). Prevalence of symptom exaggeration across studies ranged from 17% to 67%. We found low certainty evidence suggesting that studies with a greater proportion of women (≥40%) may be associated with higher rates of exaggeration (47%, 95%CI 36-58) vs. studies with a lower proportion of women (<40%) (31%, 95%CI 28-35; test of interaction p = 0.02). Possible explanations include biological differences, greater bodily awareness, or higher rates of negative affectivity. We found no significant subgroup effects for type of clinical condition, confidence in the reference standard, age, or education.<h4>Conclusion</h4>Symptom exaggeration may occur in almost 50% of women and in approximately a third of men undergoing IMEs. The high prevalence of symptom exaggeration among IME attendees provides a compelling rationale for clinical evaluators to formally explore this issue. Future research should establish the reliability and validity of evaluation criteria for symptom exaggeration and develop a structured IME assessment approach.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0324684
spellingShingle Andrea J Darzi
Li Wang
John J Riva
Rami Z Morsi
Rana Charide
Rachel J Couban
Samer G Karam
Kian Torabiardakani
Annie Lok
Shanil Ebrahim
Sheena Bance
Regina Kunz
Gordon H Guyatt
Jason W Busse
Prevalence of symptom exaggeration among North American independent medical evaluation examinees: A systematic review of observational studies.
PLoS ONE
title Prevalence of symptom exaggeration among North American independent medical evaluation examinees: A systematic review of observational studies.
title_full Prevalence of symptom exaggeration among North American independent medical evaluation examinees: A systematic review of observational studies.
title_fullStr Prevalence of symptom exaggeration among North American independent medical evaluation examinees: A systematic review of observational studies.
title_full_unstemmed Prevalence of symptom exaggeration among North American independent medical evaluation examinees: A systematic review of observational studies.
title_short Prevalence of symptom exaggeration among North American independent medical evaluation examinees: A systematic review of observational studies.
title_sort prevalence of symptom exaggeration among north american independent medical evaluation examinees a systematic review of observational studies
url https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0324684
work_keys_str_mv AT andreajdarzi prevalenceofsymptomexaggerationamongnorthamericanindependentmedicalevaluationexamineesasystematicreviewofobservationalstudies
AT liwang prevalenceofsymptomexaggerationamongnorthamericanindependentmedicalevaluationexamineesasystematicreviewofobservationalstudies
AT johnjriva prevalenceofsymptomexaggerationamongnorthamericanindependentmedicalevaluationexamineesasystematicreviewofobservationalstudies
AT ramizmorsi prevalenceofsymptomexaggerationamongnorthamericanindependentmedicalevaluationexamineesasystematicreviewofobservationalstudies
AT ranacharide prevalenceofsymptomexaggerationamongnorthamericanindependentmedicalevaluationexamineesasystematicreviewofobservationalstudies
AT racheljcouban prevalenceofsymptomexaggerationamongnorthamericanindependentmedicalevaluationexamineesasystematicreviewofobservationalstudies
AT samergkaram prevalenceofsymptomexaggerationamongnorthamericanindependentmedicalevaluationexamineesasystematicreviewofobservationalstudies
AT kiantorabiardakani prevalenceofsymptomexaggerationamongnorthamericanindependentmedicalevaluationexamineesasystematicreviewofobservationalstudies
AT annielok prevalenceofsymptomexaggerationamongnorthamericanindependentmedicalevaluationexamineesasystematicreviewofobservationalstudies
AT shanilebrahim prevalenceofsymptomexaggerationamongnorthamericanindependentmedicalevaluationexamineesasystematicreviewofobservationalstudies
AT sheenabance prevalenceofsymptomexaggerationamongnorthamericanindependentmedicalevaluationexamineesasystematicreviewofobservationalstudies
AT reginakunz prevalenceofsymptomexaggerationamongnorthamericanindependentmedicalevaluationexamineesasystematicreviewofobservationalstudies
AT gordonhguyatt prevalenceofsymptomexaggerationamongnorthamericanindependentmedicalevaluationexamineesasystematicreviewofobservationalstudies
AT jasonwbusse prevalenceofsymptomexaggerationamongnorthamericanindependentmedicalevaluationexamineesasystematicreviewofobservationalstudies