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

Background: 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. Methods: 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. Results: 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 (