Medlibs Round 1.8 at Highlight Health

For those that haven’t yet seen it:

The MedLib’s Round, the monthly blog carnival that highlights some of the best writing on medical librarianship, encompassing all stages in the publication and dissemination of medical information: writing, publishing, searching, citing, managing and social networking is up at Highlight Health (link).

The theme of this incredible 8th edition is: Finding Credible Health Information Online.

Walter Jessen introduces the round as follows:

There’s a revolution occurring on the Web: those “authoritative” articles written on traditional, static websites are being replaced with blogs, wikis and online social networks. In the sphere of health, medicine and information technology, this “real-time Web” consists of many who are experts in the field; these are their posts listed below.
In the digital age, these are the characteristics of new media: recent, relevant, reachable and reliable.

Subjects: “Searching the Web for health information”, “Biomedical research”, “Web 2.0 tools”, “PubMed Redesigned” and “Social media and participatory medicine” with contributions of Women’s Health News, Our Bodies Our Blog [@rachel_w]* Emerging Technologies Librarian [@pfanderson] Musings of a Distractible Mind [@doc_rob] Laika’s MedLibLog [@ericrumsey, Janet Wale, @Laikas], Significant Science [@hleman], Websearch Guide Internet News [Gwen Harris], Alisha764’s Blog [@alisha764] Next Generation Science [@NextGenScience], Dr Shock MD Ph [@DrShock], Life in the Fast Lane [@sandnsurf], Knowledge beyond words [@novoseek on Twitter], Eagle Dawg Blog [@eagledawg], The Search Principle blog [@giustini], Krafty Librarian [@Krafty], Dose of Digital [@jonmrich], e-Patients.net [@SusannahFox] and Highlight HEALTH [@HighlightHEALTH].

Walter Jessen [wjjessen] concluded the blog carnival with a great presentation of Kevin Clauson [@kevinclauson] on the role of Facebook and Twitter in pharmacy and the development of participatory medicine. Since I intended to show this presentation anyway, I might as well place it here :

Please enjoy reading the blog carnival at Highlight Health.

The host of the next edition of MedLib’s Round will be Knowledge Beyond Words (http://blog.novoseek.com). Valentin of Novoseek invites you to start submitting through this form http://blogcarnival.com/bc/submit_6092.html

Past and future hosts can be found on the Medlib’s Archive.

*links refer to the Twitter addresses.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Tell the FDA the whole story, please (thehealthcareblog.com)
• Gov 2.0,The FDA, and Social Media (directmarketingobservations.com)
• Drug companies seek answers from FDA regarding online advertising – MedCity Morning Read, Nov. 12, 2009 (medcitynews.com)
• Medlib’s Round 1.8. Call for submissions (laikaspoetnik.wordpress.com)
• MEDLIB’s ROUND 1.6 (laikaspoetnik.wordpress.com)
• A Spooktacular Medlibs Round at Alisha764’s blog (laikaspoetnik.wordpress.com)

Friday Foolery #11. Is Friday the 13th bad for your Health?

Is Friday the 13th bad for your health?

Apparently it is, at least according to a study published in the BMJ in 1993 [1].
This retrospective study comparing driving and shopping patterns and accidents shows that Friday 13th is unlucky for some. Despite that there were consistently and significantly fewer vehicles on the southern section of the M25 on Friday the 13th compared with Friday the 6th, the admissions due to transport accidents were significantly increased on Friday 13th (total 65 v 45; p < 0.05). Since the risk of hospital admission as a result of a transport accident may be increased by as much as 52%, staying at home is recommended by the authors.

In a related article (PubMed) in the Am J Psychiatry (2002), deaths from Finnish traffic accidents on Friday the 13th were compared with those on other Fridays. Here a difference was found between men and women. In men, the adjusted risk ratio for dying on Friday the 13th, compared with other Fridays, was 1.02, (no difference) but for women, it was 1.63. An estimated 38% of traffic deaths involving women on this day were attributable to Friday the 13th itself.
Therefore again this author concludes that Friday the 13th may be a dangerous day, but only for women. The author thinks this is  largely because of anxiety from superstition. Although the risk of traffic deaths on this date could be reduced by one-third, the absolute gain would remain very small: only one death per 5 million person-days.

Other Finnish researchers reinvestigated this finding, but they also looked at the injury accident database, because this database contains much more data than the fatality database. They reasoned that if there was a Friday-the-13th effect by impaired psychic and psychomotor functioning due to more frequent anxiety among women, it should also appear in the number of injury crashes. They found no consistent evidence for females having more road traffic crashes on Fridays the 13th, based on deaths or road accident statistics. Still, since an effect of superstition related anxiety on accident risk can not be excluded, the authors conclude that people who are anxious of “Black Friday” may stay home, or at least avoid driving a car.

Well at least you now know what scientific research says about Friday the 13th, or uuh don’t you?
At least, females suffering from Paraskevidekatriaphobia or even Triskaidekaphobia should better stay at home. You know, just in case…

Credits:

• Hattip for 1st article: @TheSofa
• Photo Friday the 13th: http://www.flickr.com/photos/danniquee/ / CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

References

1. Scanlon TJ, Luben RN, Scanlon FL, Singleton N. Is Friday the 13th bad for your health? BMJ. 1993 Dec 18-25;307(6919):1584-6.
2. Näyhä S. Traffic deaths and superstition on Friday the 13th. Am J Psychiatry. 2002 Dec;159(12):2110-1.
3. Radun I, Summala H. Females do not have more injury road accidents on Friday the 13th. BMC Public Health. 2004 Nov 16;4:54.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Triskaidekaphobia or fear of 13 (tech.bl0x.info)
• Friday the 13th Superstitions | Triskaidekaphobia (blippitt.com)
• Friday the 13th Superstitions: Triskaidekaphobia, Fear Of 13, Fuels List Of Related Fears (huffingtonpost.com)

Laika’s #FollowFriday #FF Twitter List

In my post Twitter’s #FollowFriday #FF – Over the Top. Literally I explained what Twitter’s FollowFriday or FF means, how this Twitter meme started and how FollowFriday should and shouldn’t be used.

In short, FollowFriday is a way to recommend a few people to your Twitter-followers. For at least 2 reasons: to acknowledge those favorite tweeters and make it easier for your followers to find new interesting people.

However, many people don’t use the FollowFriday correctly. For instance, they spend several tweets just mentioning dozens of @people and they repeat the tweets (retweet) about each recommendation they get @themselves. That is annoying for people seeing these tweets appearing in their timeline.

In this FollowFriday post I suggested some Twitter Etiquette Rules as well as some alternatives for the FollowFriday approach.

Now there is another alternative, which can either be used alone or as an adjunct to the normal FollowFriday-tweets:

Twitterlists!

The Twitter List feature is designed to make following and suggesting groups of tweeters easier. Everyone on Twitter can create up to 20 lists with a maximum of 500 Twitter people each. Others can follow these lists as well. So instead of FollowFridays you could construct lists of your favorite Twitter people for others to follow. There is one disadvantage of this approach: context is lost. You can only put people on a list without any further explanation why. Of course, you can create separate lists of categories of people, in my case librarians, doctors and funny people for instance, so others have an idea what to expect.

Some people think Twitterlists make FollowFridays obsolete. However Twitterlists and FollowFridays could reinforce each other. At least that’s what I will try using the following approach.

I will construct a FollowFriday Twitter list on basis of my FollowFriday-tweets. They provide the context. Because Tweets get lost, I will gather those tweets on a separate page, so you can always find my elaborated FF-recommendations there.

For Twitter-newcomers, who know me, but find it difficult to find interesting people to follow, this may be a useful starting point.

In selective cases I also plan to write a #FF post to put someone in the limelight. I intend to do the same with bloggers.

By the way I only include people with useful tweets on the lists, so people with great blogs but with not so interesting or very infrequent tweets won’t be included.
As time goes, I may also prune the list, because the number or quality of the tweets or my preference may change.

What is a good tweet? That is personal, but I think that people should be original, helpful, social and up to date and provide good information (with links) .

When you’re on Twitter you like you can follow my FF-list here:
http://twitter.com/laikas/followfridays-ff/

The Following people are included on my FF-list (listed chronologically according my tweet-timeline)
** means that I often have a chitchat or social talk with that person and/or that he/she is very helpful).

1. @allergynotes , currently @drves (doctor, immunology, health 2.0, **) 2x
2. @berci (doctor, scientist, **)
3. @conorato (health 2.0)
4. @shamsha (medlib, **)    3x
5. @amcunningam (doctor, education, skeptic, **)  2x
6. @pudliszek (medlib, **) 2x
7. @eagledawg (medlib, **)  2x
8. @pfanderson (medlib, geek, **)
9. @digicmb (medlib, geek, NL, **)  2x
10. @sarchet62 (lib, med. anthropologist, geek)
11. @dreamingspires (publishing, Aussie, **)
12. @staticnrg (survivor, health 2.0, science, **)
13. @bonnycastle (education, **)
14. @andrewspong (publishing, skeptic)
15. @DrShock (doctor, psychi, NL, **)
16. @aarontay (lib, geek)
17. @MarilynMann (science, cancer survivor, lawyer, skeptic, pharma)
    Following tweets could not be traced back:
18. @flutesUD (scientist, PhD-student, **)
19. @palmdoc (doctor, geek)
20. @doctorblogs (doctor, EBM, health 2.0)
21. @bgaustin (EBM)
22. @northerndoctor (doctor, GP, EBM, Skeptic)
23. @Blue_Wode (EBM, Skeptic)
24. @precordialthump (doctor, ICU, Aussie, **)
25. @sandnsurf (doctor, ICU, Aussie, **)
26. @bitethedust (Remote Pharmacist, Aussie, Art, **)
27. @giustini (medlib, web 2.0)
28. @jstaaks (lib, psycho, UBA, bieptweet, NL, **)
29. @ENTHouse (doc, ENT, **)

Based on the Next #FollowFriday recommendations (as far as I could trace them back):

• #followfriday @allergynotes @berci @conorato @shamsha @amcunningam 2 name just a few #Nextfriday I will mention other people w/useful tweets
• #followfriday “medlibs” bc of their TWEETS! @shamsha @pudliszek @eagledawg @pfanderson @digicmb @sarchet62#nextfriday More
• #Followfriday 4 truly responding 2 tweets and providing good tweets themselves @dreamingspires @digicmb@AllergyNotes @shamsha @Pudliszek
• RT @alisha764: #followfriday This week, shout out 2 @eagledawg 4 great updates, keeping @medlibs running, & Friday Foolery posts! – YEP!
• #followfriday @staticnrg 4 describing her own journey as a cushing patient, doing a lot 4 her fellow patient, while keeping a broad interest
• The other #followfriday goes to @bonnycastle who has designed a beautiful medical education wiki and is always willing to help (via twitter)
• #followmonday instead of #followfriday follow @andrewspong 4 Open Access Week October 19-23, 2009 http://www.openaccessweek.org/ #STweM
• This #followfriday goes 2 @DrShock. Perfect Med Blog, good tweets & nice guy, always ready 2 help and give advice.
• #Followfriday @amcunningham bc this GP is nice, soundly critical, likes discussions ; specialized in education, but has a broad interest.
• My #followfriday goes to @aarontay , a techy librarian from Singapore. Has many tips as a tweeter and a blogger http://is.gd/2ssJ3 #ff #fb
• #fussyfollowfriday #followfriday @MarilynMann 4 her excellent, original tweets i.e. about pharma & clinical trials – but pls another avatar

Related articles by Zemanta

• Twitter Lists: Frequently Asked Questions and Strategies (mashable.com)

Role of Consumer Networks in Evidence Based Health Information

Guest author: Janet Wale
member of the Cochrane Consumer Network

People are still struggling with evidence or modern medicine – clinicians, patients, health consumers, carers and the public alike. Part of this is because we always thought medicine was based on quality research, or evidence. It is not only that. For evidence to be used most effectively in healthcare systems researchers, clinicians and ‘the existing or potential patients and carers’ have to communicate and resonate with each other – to share knowledge and responsibilities both in developing the evidence and in individual decision making. On the broader population level, this may include consultation but is best achieved by developing partnerships.

The Cochrane Collaboration develops a large number of the published systematic reviews of best evidence on healthcare interventions, available electronically on The Cochrane Library. Systematic reviews are integral to the collation of evidence to inform clinical practice guidelines. They are also an integral part of health technology assessments, where the cost-effectiveness of healthcare interventions is determined for a particular health system.

With the availability of the Internet we are able to readily share information. We are also acutely aware of disadvantage for many of the World’s populations. What this has meant is pooled efforts. Now we have not only the World Health Organization but also The Cochrane Collaboration, Guidelines International Network, and Health Technology Assessment International. What is common among these organizations? They involve the users of health care, including patients, consumers and carers. The latter three organizations have a formal consumer/patient and citizen group that informs their work. In this way we work to make the evidence relevant, accessible and being used. We all have to be discerning whatever knowledge we are given and apply it to ourselves.

This is  a short post on request.
It also appeared as a comment at: http://e-patients.net/archives/2009/11/tell-the-fda-the-whole-story-please.html

Related articles by Zemanta

• #Cochrane Colloquium 2009: Better Working Relationship between Cochrane and Guideline Developers (laikaspoetnik.wordpress.com)
• Journal of Participatory Medicine – Website Launch (ducknetweb.blogspot.com)
• Medical journals agree to editorial checklist (canada.com)

Finding Skin Disease Pictures on the Web

Guest author: Eric Rumsey (@ericrumsey on Twitter)
Librarian and Web Developer at University of Iowa
Creater and Keeper of Hardin MD

——————————————————————————————-

When looking for skin disease pictures on the Web, the first step is to search for the specific disease terms of interest in Google Image Search. You will likely find something, but don’t assume that it comes close to being everything — Very likely it doesn’t! In my experience, it will have somewhere in the range of 10-30% of everything on the Web. In particular, it will not have images from what I consider to be the single most comprehensive, reliable site for skin disease pictures — DermNet.com, by  Alan N. Binnick & Thomas P. Habif, Dartmouth Medical School.

Though Dermnet.com is a large site, with high-quality pictures, it does not appear in Google Image Search, apparently because the tagging/metadata is so sparse. Indeed, the pictures on the site are virtually without any accompanying text. They are classed by disease, but not by any other characteristics, e.g. age, gender, or anatomical region.

A relatively small subset of the images in Dermnet.com are included in Hardin MD, where the tagging/metadata is more complete, making them easier to search. These images are included by special arrangement with people at Dermnet, who have given us permission to include them in Hardin MD.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Google September 2009 Image Search Update Turns Out Bad? (seroundtable.com)
• Find Images You Can Reuse at Google Images (lockergnome.com)
• A Simple Way to Specify Image Licenses (googlesystem.blogspot.com)

Friday Foolery #10. 6 x X-Rays

“X-rays” were in the news this week, at least there was an illuminating exposure on Twitter. Here are 6 stories, half serious and half not so serious.

[1] First, voters have picked the X-ray machine as the most important scientific invention (objects in science, engineering, technology and medicine), in a poll to celebrate the centenary of the Science Museum in London. As a matter of fact medical inventions were in the top three places in the poll (1. X-ray machines 2. Penicillin and 3. DNA double helix), ahead of the Apollo 10 capsule (no. 4) and the steam engine (8).

BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8339877.stm
BMJ: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/short/339/nov05_3/b4602?rss=1

[2] Margaret Daalman came to hospital complaining of stomach ache – and one glance at her X-ray showed why:  the 52-year-old woman’s stomach contained an entire canteen of cutlery. She had to go under the knife to remove the (78!) forks and spoons. (see fotos here) The woman told the doctors: ‘I don’t know why but I felt an urge to eat the silverware – I could not help myself.’ She was somewhat picky however, as she never ate knives.
The images were actually taken over 30 years ago, but they were published for the first time this week in a Dutch medical magazine. Yes the woman was Dutch. At least according to the Daily Mail…….

However, the actual story published as a case in Medisch Contact is somewhat different.They actually state below the article:

Mededeling redactie

Over deze casus is in de populaire media foutieve berichtgeving gaande. De in andere media opgevoerde ‘mw Daalmans’ heeft niets te maken met deze casus. Het betreft, in tegenstelling tot wat elders wordt beweerd ook geen casus van 30 jaar geleden.

Which means something like: in contrary to what has been stated by the popular press this case has nothing to do with Mrs Daalmans, nor did it happen 30 years ago.
In effect, the Daily Mail mentions both (?) Rotterdam and Sittard as towns where this should have taken place, but in Medisch Contact only Helmond was mentioned. The towns are far apart.

One wonders why, because the story is extraordinary enough.

Daily Mail: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1223563/The-woman-knife--swallowing-entire-canteen-cutlery.html
Twitter: http://twitter.com/drves/status/5403151285
Medisch Contact: http://medischcontact.artsennet.nl/blad/Tijdschriftartikel/Bestek-in-de-maag.htm

[3] An obese man died after refusing an X-ray taken in a machine for zoo animals because he was too large for the hospital’s X-ray machine, the maximum capacity of most hospital machines being around 200 kilo. Later his wife told that the man felt too humiliated to go to the zoo.

The Local (Germany news in English, Bild.de.) http://www.thelocal.de/society/20091103-22993.html

[4] Todays Friday Funny post of dr. Val at Better Health is Joyful Radiology or Merry X-Ray

Better Health: http://getbetterhealth.com/the-friday-funny-joyful-radiology/2009.11.06

[5] A special X-Ray: CAT-scan

http://www.flickr.com/photos/robinkearney/ / CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

[6] When both your arm and the X-ray are broken:

Cyanide & Happiness @ Explosm.net

Ooh, I wonder whether the great number of X-ray related posts has something to do with the upcoming overlooked holiday: X-ray day (November 8th).

Can someone put the light off?

Articles by Zemanta

• X-ray machine voted top modern discovery in poll (guardian.co.uk)

Twitter Lists of Medical and other Scientific Journals

In the previous two posts (“Biomedical Journals on Twitter” and List(s) of Tweeting Journals: Your Votes Please!) I introduced the Google-spreadsheet of (Bio-)medical Journals, manually compiled by the concerted effort of many people on Twitter. At a certain point other non-biomedical scientific journals were added, which made the list more complete, but less useful for most health care people, for whom the list was designed. In the last post I therefore asked people whether they preferred one complete list (as it was), one lists with different tabs for each discipline or different spreadsheets.

The results of the poll:

Twenty-seven people responded. Although this is a small sample, it is clear that people either preferred one separate medical or biomedical list (30% and 26%) or one spreadsheet with all types of journals on separate tabs (33%). There was little or no interest in separate lists or all journals on one lists (without separation in tabs).

Discussion about the design of the spreadsheet has become somewhat superfluous by the recent roll out of Twitter Lists. The Twitter List feature is designed to make following and suggesting groups of tweeters easier. Everyone on Twitter can make up 20 lists of maximal 500 Twitter/people each. On the web you can easily add each account you like to your lists.

I have created 3 Twitter Journal List. In line with the outcome of the poll, I made  completely overlapping sets, where the Medical journal set is part of the Biomedical journal set, which belongs to the All/Science set.

If you’re on Twitter you can follow these three journal lists:

• A (All) = http://twitter.com/laikas/scientific-journals-all : 90
• B (Biomedical) = http://twitter.com/laikas/biomedical-journals: 68
• M (Medical) = http://twitter.com/laikas/medical-journals: 48

The spreadsheet still forms the basis. You can make adjustments here and if you mark them (color) or let me know, I will include them in the Twitter lists.
Found any new journals/magazines? Please feel free to add them.

If you’re interested in following (bio-)medical and/or scientific journals you can follow the list(s) you want, or your own selection from the journals in the lists.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Twitter Lists (battellemedia.com)
• Healthcare’s Google-Facebook-Twitter Platform (philbaumann.com)
• Twitter Officially Rolls Out Lists [Communication] (lifehacker.com)
• Twitter Lists- Im Not Down (chrisbrogan.com)
• Half of all Twitter users now have lists feature turned on (venturebeat.com)
• Twitter Lists: Love It or Leave It? (geeksugar.com)
• Three Reasons Twitter Lists Are Great (and Two Areas for Improvement) (futurelab.net)
• Twitter Starts Rolling Out Lists To Everybody. Have You Gotten Yours? (techcrunch.com)

Health Care Haikus

Dr Rob Lamberts of Musings of a Distractible Mind is holding a “Health Care Haiku Contest“. The actual contest is at his Facebook page.

Inspired by the beautiful haiku of Dr. Ramona Bates of Suture for a Living, who also inspired T of Notes of an Anesthesioboist to write a Haiku, I started to write my own. Once I started writing, I couldn’t stop.

This is the result: 9 Health Care Haikus.

Haiku #1

Dark when he leaves home,

Dark when he returns from work.

Resident Life.

Haiku #2

Web 2 point ooh tools,

Might help to reform health care.

Change needs people 2.

Haiku #3

Health Care Reform.

An unaffordable plan?

A matter of choice.

Haiku #4

One trillion for war.

The poor denied insurance.

U.S. Death Panel.

Haiku #5

P S A screening,

rectal exams, biopsies.

Worries, no less deaths.

Haiku #6

Doctor, Desk, Patient

Questions, silence, not understood,

Frown, shake hands, such pain.

Haiku #7

Fragile hands, white sheets,

Witty old man, nurses laugh.

Shout down silent tears.

Haiku #8

Wishing he was dead,

Paralyzed from neck down,

Nothing he can do.

Haiku #9

The man next to me

discusses end-of-life-wish.

Curtains are closed.

Notes and Acknowledgements

• Haiku #1 : Inspired by a tweet by Scott Greenberg, MD (and resident)
• Haiku #2: Own experience, Web 2.0 is more than web 2.0 tools, Web 2.0 is people (see presentation)
• Haiku #3 and #4: Based on article: “We Can’t Afford Health Care? You Lie!” at Truthorg. (see linked photo below)
• Haiku #5 A lot of money goes into screening. But is it worth while? Recent studies show that prostate cancer screening may not lower mortality. See older post: Still Confusion about the Usefulness of PSA-screening.
• Haiku #6, #7, #8, #9 All about loneliness of patients, miscommunication, the lack of being in control and the lack of privacy. Haiku #8 and #9 are based on my own experience: the man lying next to me wanted to end his life, but was not allowed to. He had to take fluid food. I overheard the conversations between him and his doctors, nurses, a psychiatrist, a dietitian and a priest. Quite embarrassing.

Photo Credits:

• July night at ER http://www.flickr.com/photos/cobalt/1018284405/ (#1)
• Health Care Warfare Narrow: http://www.flickr.com/photos/truthout/3932066708/ (#3, #4)
• Exam: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mkmabus/2910025091/ (#5)
• Phading Doctor Patient Mural : http://www.flickr.com/photos/cbmd/2868594277/ (#6)
• The Patient in the Next Bed: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mynameisharsha/2898004506/ (#8, #9)

 

Are you a Twitter user? Tweet this!

Related articles by Zemanta

• Putting Profit before Patients (thehealthcareblog.com)

Medlib’s Round 1.8. Call for submissions

Highlight HEALTH will be hosting the next edition of the MedLib’s Round Blog Carnival, edition 1.8, next week on Tuesday, November 10th.

Walter Jessen of Highlight Health:

The Highlight HEALTH Network promotes health literacy by presenting reliable, credible sources of health and medical information. As such, the theme for this month’s edition of MedLib’s Round is Finding credible health information online. As host, I invite you to send your submissions.

The MedLib’s Round Blog Carnival is a monthly blog carnival of the best articles in medical librarianship. With Walter, I would like to stress  that the carnival is not restricted to librarians – anyone can submit as long as the post is relevant and of good quality. If you have an article on medical librarianship, PubMed, evidence-based medicine, information literacy or Web 2.0 tools, submit your article here. Highlight Health will give priority to those posts that focus on finding credible health information online.

Please submit your article no later than Monday Wednesday, November 9 11th at 04:00:00 UTC (12:00pm CST) at http://blogcarnival.com/bc/submit_6092.html

Receive e-mail notification when MedLibs Round 1.8 is published.

An archive of all previous editions of MedLibs Round is listed at the MedLib’s Archive on Laika’s MedLibLog.

Are you a Twitter user? Tweet this!

——————-

The original announcement appeared at Highlight Health

Related articles by Zemanta

• A Spooktacular Medlibs Round at Alisha764’s blog (laikaspoetnik.wordpress.com)

Laika’s MedLibLog on the Longlist of the Dutch Bloggies!

Laika’s MedLibLog is nominated for the Dutch Bloggies-awards. The Dutch Bloggies is a  yearly contest by the foundation “Dutch Bloggies” that awards weblogs from Dutch-speaking regions.

Besides the overall Most Popular Weblog and Best Microblog, there are longlists for 15 categories. There are 10 blogs on each longlist. Laika’s Medliblog is nominated for best blog in category Best health & sport weblogs.

These are the blogs in this category:

Ajax Life | Catenaccio.nl | De Hardloper | Gezondheid.blog.nl | Green Jump | Laika’s MedLibLog | Marijn Fietst | Medicalfacts | SuikerWijzer | Zorg Beter Maken

I do feel like Tom Thumb amidst the giants. Apart that this site serves a small niche, it is hosted by one person in spare time on a WordPress domain. I’m getting a little intimidated by the professional looks and frequent updates of some of the self hosted blogs. But being nominated is already a great honor.

After publication of the shortlists the final winners will be announced in “het Paard van Troje” in The Hague, December 1th.

Nice to know: Colleague Librarian and fellow blogger Edwin Mijnsbergen (http://twitter.com/zbdigitaal) of the Wonderful blog ZB Digitaal was previous year’s winner in the category Education (see his blogpost)

All longlists can be viewed on http://www.dutchbloggies.nl/2009/?e=16

A better overview (without the need for clicking) is presented at JeroenMirck (link), the blog of Jeroen Mirck, journalist and chairman of the jury.

NRC-next blog (a blog of a Dutch newspaper) -nominated four times itself- also refers to the contest here.

The Volkskrant mentions the Dutch Bloggies nominations here

The deliberation of the jury. Originally there were 5000 nominations.

Hot News: Curry, Curcumin, Cancer & Cure

*Hot* News via Twitter and various news media a few days ago. Big headlines tell the following in respectively The Sun, Herald, Ireland, BBC News / NHS Health and Reuters:

Curry is a ‘cure for cancer‘

Spices in curry may help cure cancer

Curry spice ‘kills cancer cells‘

Scientists say curry compound kills cancer cells

The message of these headlines is quite different and so are the articles themselves (covered more in depth by @jdc325 at the BadScience Blog “Stuff and Nonsense” (see here)). They vary from “curry being a cure for cancer” to “a possible effect of one of its compounds on cancer cells”.

So what was (not) done?

1. Cancer was not cured.
2. It was not a human trial.
3. The study didn’t test effects on living laboratory animals, like mice, either.
4. The study was done in the test tube, using individual cancer cell lines.
5. The cells tested were (only) esophageal cancer cell lines.
6. Testing the drugs efficacy was not the main aim of the study.
7. Curry (a complex spicy mixture) wasn’t used.
8. Curcumin was tested, which makes up 3% of “turmeric”, that is one of the spices in curry.
9. That curcumin has some anti-carcinogenic effects is not new (see my tweet linking to 1120 hits in PubMed with a  simple PubMed search for curcumin and cancer: http://bit.ly/3Qydc6)

So why the fuss? This doesn’t seem to be a terribly shocking study. Why the media picked this one up is unclear. It must have been, because they were sleeping (missed all the previous studies on curcumin) and/or because they are fond of these kind of studies: except from the experimental details- these studies translate so well to the general public: food – cure – cancer.

And the headlines do it much better than the actual title of the article:

Curcumin induces apoptosis-independent death in oesophageal cancer cells

I experienced the same when my study was picked up at a cancer conference by BBC-health, whereas other far more pioneering studies were not: these were harder to grasp and to explain ‘to the public’ and without any possible direct health benefit.

What was already known about curcumin and cancer? What was done in the present study? What is new? And is curcumin really a promising agent?

Already known.

Curcumin (diferuloylmethane) is a polyphenol derived from the plant Curcuma longa, commonly called turmeric. It gives the curry it bright yellow color. Curcumin has a plethora of beneficial effects in vitro (in the test tube) and in animal studies, including anti-microbial,  anti-arthritic and  anti-inflammatory effects, but most interesting is its anti-carcinogenic effect. It has potential for both prevention and therapy of cancer, but the evidence for preventive effects is most convincing. The mechanisms playing a role in the anticarcinogenic effect are also multifold and complex. Possible mechanisms include: Inhibition/protection from DNA damage/alterations, Inhibition of angiogenesis, Inhibition of invasion/metastasis, Induction of apoptosis, Antioxidant activity, Induction of GST, Inhibition of cytochromes P450, I NF-jB, AP-1, MMPs, COX-2, TNF-a, IL-6, iNOS, IL-1b, the oncogens ras/fos/jun/myc, MAPK, ornithine decarboxylase, Activation of Nrf2, Induction of HO-1, Activation of PPAR-c  and Immunostimulant/immunorestorer effect……….[2]

New Findings

This is to put in perspective that the researchers found yet another possible mechanism (although others have found evidence before, see introduction [1]). Using a small panel of esophagus cancer cells, they first showed that the cells were selectively killed by curcumin. Next they showed that the major mechanism wasn’t apoptosis, cell death by suicide, but cell death by a mechanism called “Mitotic catastrophe”, a type of cell death that occurs during mitosis (cell division) (see free review in Oncogene [3]). As with apoptosis many steps have to go wrong before the cell will undergo mitotic catastrophe. The researchers show that curcumin-responsive cells were found to accumulate poly-ubiquitinated proteins and cyclin B, consistent with a disturbance of the ubiquitin–proteasome system: ubiquitin labels proteins for degradation by proteasomes, thereby controlling the stability, function, and intracellular localization of a wide variety of proteins.

In other words, this study is mainly about the mechanisms behind the anti-cancer effects of curcumin.

Cure?

Of course this paper itself has no direct relevance to the management of human esophagus cancer. The sentence that may have triggered the media is:

“Curcumin can induce cell death by a mechanism that is not reliant on apoptosis induction, and thus represents a promising anticancer agent for prevention and treatment of esophageal cancer.”

Which is of course to far-fetched. The authors refer to the fact that esophageal cancers are often resistant to cell death induction with chemotherapeutic drugs, but this only indirectly points at a possible role for curcumin.

It has to be stressed that no human study has convincingly shown an anti-tumor effects of curcumin. Studies that have been done are observational, i.e. show that people taking higher concentrations of curcumin in their diet have a lower incidence of several common cancer types. However, such studies are prone to bias: several other factors (alone or in together) can be responsible for a anti-cancer effect (see previous post [5] explaining this for other nutrients).

The Current grade of evidence for a preventive or therapeutic effect is C, which means “unclear scientific evidence” (see MedlinePlus).

Although there are several trials under way there is reason to be skeptical about the potential of curcumin as cancertherapeutic agent.

• The limited bioavailability and extensive metabolism of curcumin suggest that many of its anticancer effects observed in vitro may not be attainable in vivo. On the other the gastro-intestinal system is he most likely place for an effect of curcimin taken by the oral route. [2]
• Although relatively high concentrations of curcumin have not shown significant toxicity in short-term studies, these concentrations may lead to toxic and carcinogenic effects in the long term.[2]
• The therapeutic effects are dose-dependent. As often seen with these bioactive compounds, toxic effects can occur at supra-optimal amounts. Indeed curcumin has shown to be toxic and carcinogenic under specific conditions. At low and high doses curcumin behaves as an anti-oxidant and a pro-oxidant (toxic) respectively. [2, 6 ]
• Often more ingredients add to the therapeutic effect, or more foods/habits [5].
• The FDA has a shortlist of “187 Fake Cancer “Cures” Consumers Should Avoid”, compounds containing curcumin are on that list [7].

Conclusion

So, concluding, a study that unraveled one of the mechanisms whereby curcumin can kill cancer cells, led to an exaggerated and sometimes completely wrong coverage in the media. Why this was done is unclear, but the ultimate result of such misplaced drumroll will only lead to disbelief or carelessness.

Shame on you, media!!

Photo credits

http://www.flickr.com/photos/trentstrohm/347513745/

References

1. O’Sullivan-Coyne, G., O’Sullivan, G., O’Donovan, T., Piwocka, K., & McKenna, S. (2009). Curcumin induces apoptosis-independent death in oesophageal cancer cells British Journal of Cancer, 101 (9), 1585-1595 DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605308
2. López-Lázaro, M. (2008). Anticancer and carcinogenic properties of curcumin: Considerations for its clinical development as a cancer chemopreventive and chemotherapeutic agent Molecular Nutrition & Food Research DOI: 10.1002/mnfr.200700238
3. Castedo, M., Perfettini, J., Roumier, T., Andreau, K., Medema, R., & Kroemer, G. (2004). Cell death by mitotic catastrophe: a molecular definition Oncogene, 23 (16), 2825-2837 DOI: 10.1038/sj.onc.1207528
4. Stuff and Nonsense – Curry can cure cancer, say scientists (2009/10/28)
5. The best study design for dummies (2008/08/25)
6. Huge disappointment: Selenium and Vitamin E fail to Prevent Prostate Cancer.(post on this blog about the SELECT trial – 2008/11/16)
7. http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/EnforcementActivitiesbyFDA/ucm171057.htm

You may also want to read:

• MnSOD, Carotenoids & Prostate Cancer – “You are what you eat” depends on who you are. (2009/02/22/
• Yet another negative trial with vitamins in prostate cancer vitamins c and e (2008/12/15)

Related articles by Zemanta

• Curry an answer for curing cancer? (americablog.com)
• Curry spice ‘kills cancer cells’ (news.bbc.co.uk)
• Molecule in curry kills cancer cells, study finds (network.nationalpost.com)
• Curry compound killed cancer cells in lab (cbc.ca)

The New PubMed: Trick or Treat?

The New PubMed: Trick or Treat?

After a long days work, when looking at the screen,

there it was: PubMed’s new interface, so it seemed,

But one blink – and it had gone…

To come back the following dawn.

The change itself was long announced,

we could play with the new “Advanced”.

Still I postponed and procrastinated,

Pointless: the new PubMed couldn’t wait

any longer, but this Redesign isn’t it for me….

Sure, the front page looks web-2-ish, minimalistic & clean,

which is perfect for the Google-Generation,

the hurry-don’t think-just-slash-i-got-one-publication-

PhD’s, for whom all alterations have been made.

Some people think you just have to wait

& see and get used to it.

but I’m already fed up with it.

I know you all think it is just a Librarian-rant.

Librarians they can stick with the new “Advanced”,

“Advanced” however, is just Limits & Index…

But boy did they make this page look complex!

Sure, the basic researchers seem to be quite pleased.

Busy physicians too, they think it is more easy.

They tell me librarian not to wine:

“Go MEDLINE OVID! we stay with this design.”

This is no new idea, didn’t you know:

I long seek refuge in OVID MEDLINE, although

only for exhaustive searches, that much is true.

So why -having this alternative- am I still feeling blue?

Well, I’m not complaining for myself, but for you.

I don’t speak as a searcher, but as a teacher too.

It is so frustrating that I have to explain to you

that each step you take is now multiplied by two.

NLM says all functionalities are still there.

The problem is you have to find where…

I don’t mind the present front page,

but the so called “Advanced” gives no advantage,

at least not for doctors searching evidence.

I teach them “Googling doesn’t make sense“.

Just choose the most important concepts,

work from the History and search words separately.

Begin to find the MesH-terms, and although it is complex

add textwords too, to find papers not yet indexed.

Combine synonyms with “OR” and concepts with “AND”,

Go to the Clinical Queries and use the appropriate command”..

But now it takes so many steps. It is a BIG FAIL

sometimes. You start at the front page, look at the Details,

mapping is wrong, go to Advanced, scroll, scroll, scroll..

to Mesh, “send to Pubmed”, where am I? out of control,

again on the Start page? Go to Advanced again.

Away with Limit and other boxes! – I don’t need them!

The Index yields a MeSH that doesn’t exist?!

Darn, via automatic mapping the multi-term-word is split

in 3 separate words, complete out of context,

as I see In the Details -so I have to re-enter them,

And where have the Clinical Queries gone?

Right, have to scroll the entire “Advanced” page… Yawn…

While it is true that I’m a “bit” exagerating,

my point is that the new PubMed creation

could have been so much better:

not only the functionality, the route also matters.

The redesign is a missed opportunity,

to build an entire new PubMed you see.

The interface is still quite orthodox.

I want clickable and movable boxes

with MESH in clouds thru which you can “walk”

and Clinical Queries that you can drag and drop

with a mapping tool-you can adjust,***

and savings of your settings, that is  a must.

“But the new PubMed”, you ask me

“what is it: a-trick-or-a-treat?”….

“It looks like a nicely wrapped candy,

but tasting a bit bittersweet?!”

Notes

* These links come from Eagle Dawg-blog: Pubmed: All in the attitude

** doesn’t apply to quick and dirty searches on the front page

*** i.e. allow to split or not

Photo Credits:

• Trick or Treat: (Flickr CC) catchesthelight/2989360212/
• Hand & candy: (Flickr CC) ncollett/1810987271/
• Bittersweet: Flickr (CC) deliciousmonster/2946761628/

Related articles by Zemanta

• Information Overload, the Index Medicus, and PubMed (efficientmd.blogspot.com)
• Search Engines, Genomics, Medical Literature: Tag Clouds come to PubMed via LigerCat (creakysites.wordpress.com)
• Medical Literature, Data Architecture & Organization: Idioms, Lexicons and Acronyms of Medicine? NIH, NCBI, MeSH, PubMed and Entrez (creakysites.wordpress.com)

De Ivoren Toren van Thomése

By way of exception I write a Dutch blog post to respond to an article in a Dutch Newspaper ridiculing speakers, writers, chatting and twittering people in a long-winded (3 pages) pompous, “literary” way, saying that they are terrorizing dictators. Although the writer, Thomése, might be right in some respects (all people  want to express their opinion, want to be heard, but nobody listens), his critique just hits the topic superficially. By doing so, the article adds to the already existing misunderstandings regarding social media. I finish my review by expressing the wish that Thomése mastered the art of Tweeting: be social, clear and comprehensive in 140 characters.

Image by PjotrP via Flickr

Bij uitzondering een Nederlands stukje op dit blog. Ik schrijf meestal alleen over medische-wetenschappelijke zaken -in het Engels-, maar in dit geval kon ik het niet laten. Ik kreeg namelijk een aanval van acute, persisterende jeuk toen ik het stuk van Thomése in Het NRC Handelsblad van afgelopen weekend las. Een blog bericht van Jeroen Mirck (“P.F. Thomése is een kleine dictator”) kon mijn jeuk slechts enigzins verlichten.

Het stuk van Thomése in de Opinie & Debat bijlage, heeft als kop: Sprekers, schrijvers, bellers, sms’ers, chatteraars, twitteraars: allemaal kleine dictators. Eerst vallen je ogen op chatteraars en twitteraars (oh het is weer zo’n trendy anti-Twitter story op zijn Volkskrants [1]), maar dan zie je ’sprekers, schrijvers en bellers’ staan en je vraagt je af: “wie blijft er over”?

Het vervelende van dit stuk is dat het dermate ‘literair’ (en quasi-intelligent [1]) is dat je eerst twee-en-een-halve krantenpagina door proza heen moet worstelen voordat er uberhaupt iets over deze groep “Sprekers, schrijvers, bellers, sms’ers, chatteraars, twitteraars” gezegd wordt.

Thomése wijdt ettelijke kolommen aan de introductie, een klassiek verhaal van Sartre (Erostrate uit le Mur), wat kennelijk nodig is om later zijn “kritiek in beeldspraak” te vervatten. Dit -op zich prachtige verhaal [2]- komt erop neer dat de hoofdpersoon, Paul Hilbert, gewoon is van bovenaf (de zesde etage) “neer te kijken” op mensen als waren het mieren. Hierdoor abstraheert hij mensen, ze ontmenselijken. In gedachten doodt hij willekeurige mensen -ja iedereen zou wel eens bepaalde mensen neer willen knallen, inclusief Thomése-. Wanneer Hilbert dit daadwerkelijk doet daalt hij (ook letterlijk) af naar een lager niveau en verliest hij daarbij zijn uitzonderingpositie. Hij wordt mier onder de mieren en wordt vanwege zijn daad opgejaagd tot aan het nederige toilet.

Thomése ziet in elke hedendaagse multimediale burger een Paul Hilbert, die met een killersblik op zijn eigen zesde verdieping “de gebeurtenissen op de voet volgt, zappend en surfend, alles en iedereen verwijderend uit zijn bewustzijn.”

“Er zijn te veel sprekers, te veel schrijvers, te veel bellers, sms’ers, chatters, twitteraars, allemaal kleine dictators, en allemaal willen ze laten weten – wat eigenlijk? Dat ze bestaan, om te beginnen. Hallo met mij even en dan komt het. Te veel mensen laten ongevraagd weten wat ze doen, wat ze willen en zullen (….) Maar waar zijn de lezers, de kijkers, de luisteraars? Wie moet dat allemaal aanhoren, aanschouwen, ondergaan? Zonder luisteraars kan er ook geen onderscheid meer worden gemaakt, is alles even belangrijk geworden. Er is niemand die nog tegenspreekt.”

De voorbeelden die Thomése geeft lijken vooral quotes uit discussielijsten of tweets. Het is een lukrake verzameling van uitspraken als:

“Ik mag hem wel die Scheringa”.
“Ik vind het een glibber”
Einde discussie.

Nietzeggend, inderdaad. Maar om dit nou een terroristisch-dictatoriale uitspraak te noemen die -in het openbaar gangbaar is geworden… pfff.

Een mening over iets hebben en in het openbaar ventileren is iets van alle tijden. De kruidenier van weleer ventileerde ook ongevraagd zijn mening over de heren politici, de economie of anders wel het weer. En iedere klant had ook weer zijn mening. Dat veel mensen niet de kunst verstaan te luisteren is ook niet uniek voor deze tijd.

Aan de andere kant zijn tijden zijn inderdaad veranderd: het is jachtiger, vluchtiger, consumptiever en platter geworden. Maar dat komt niet persé dóór het gebruik van multimedia.

De vergelijking van het multimediale plebs met de terroristische dictator die van 6 hoog alles oplegt loopt eigenlijk mank. Dictator ben je alleen als je mensen tot luisteren kunt dwingen en als anderen daar dus niet aan kunnen ontkomen. Luidruchtige mobiele gesprekken in de tram en stalkende schrijvers zijn uitzonderingen die deze regel bevestigen. Al zijn bellen en praten toch tamelijk pre-21ste eeuw.

Reacties op krantenartikelen, berichten, lijsten en blogs zijn wellicht vaak ontzettend eenzijdig en van een hoog wat-ben-ik-toch-origineel-en-leuk gehalte, maar het mooie is dat je het niet hoeft te lezen. Als multimediale burger (zender en ontvanger) ben je geheel vrij hierin.

En dat geldt zeker voor een nieuwe tool als Twitter. Zoals ik in een recente workshop aangaf: “Twitter is wat je er zelf van maakt.”

Doorzoek je Twitter real life op “Scheringa” of “H1N1″ dan zie je een woud aan allemaal losstaande meningen en uitspraken, meestal erg flauw of gewoon onzin. Ik doorzoek Twitter vrijwel nooit op te algemene termen en zeker niet op “trending topics”.

Veel mensen komen, net als Thomese niet verder dan deze verrekijker-visie op Twitter. Sommigen dalen even af, twitteren wat en zijn dan enorm teleurgesteld: niemand reageert. Wat ze niet begrijpen is dat Twitter een SOCIAAL MEDIUM is. Je moet een netwerk opbouwen van twitteraars die jij  interessant vindt en je moet zelf ook interessant genoeg zijn voor anderen om je te volgen. Althans als je zelf ook gehoord wilt worden.

Twitter kent nauwelijks hierarchie, er zijn geen dictators, dat werkt niet. Om beurten is iedereen schrijver en iedereen publiek, maar zo dat er een wisselwerking is. Ideaal gesproken, niet iedereen verstaat die kunst. [3]

Degene die ik volg zijn mijn menselijk filter voor ruis. Twittert iemand van de mensen die ik volg over ‘Scheringa’ of ‘H1N1′, dan is dat in de meeste gevallen waar, interessant of grappig.

Ik ontken niet dat er niet-luisterende leuteraars zijn. De kunst is om mensen te vinden die je wel boeien. Op dezelfde wijze als dat je vrienden maakt: het moet klikken. Het is allemaal eigen keus, zeker in de nieuwe (sociale) media.

Wat ik mis in Thomése’s stuk is de nuance, het is typisch de blik van iemand op de Eiffeltoren die naar beneden kijkt en enkel mieren ontwaart. Van bovenaf lijkt dat een hopeloos gewirwar en is iedereen eender.

In zijn stuk haalt Thomése Herostratus aan, de provocateur uit de klassieke oudheid die dacht: “ik kan misschien geen tempel bouwen, maar ik kan er wel een in brand steken”. Ik kan niet nalaten een vergelijking te trekken met Thomése, die wel in een ivoren toren woont en uitkijkt over de massa, die sociale media als Twitter niet doorgondt noch beheerst, maar het wel weet af te branden. Helaas verstaat hij niet de kunst dat op zijn Twitters te doen. In 140 leestekens….

1. Bron: http://www.jeroenmirck.nl/2009/10/pf-thomese-is-een-kleine-dictator/
2. Begin jaren 70 behoorden Simone de Beauvoir en Sartre tot mijn favoriete schrijvers.
3. Het is voor mij mogelijk wel wat makkelijker omdat mijn aanwezigheid op Twitter vooral werkgerelateerd is.

Silly Sunday #9: the Apocalypse of the Vocal Bubblewrap.

Tuesday Grand Rounds will be hosted by Gina Rybolt of Code Blog (see announcement).

O dear, a few hours left before the deadline expires …. What to do?

I could submit the post on BlogWorld Expo [SOTB], where I embedded an interview with Gina and Kim.

However, because it is almost Haloween, Gina is all for the super-scary!

What about the Attack of the Flu-Virus Invaders. Pretty Scary if viewed under magnification.

Or what about the next video. I could barely watch it. It is not medical, but it sure looks like eyeballs. Moohaha!

You know, we let Gina choose.

Hattip: @2525 (Francisco van Jole). This is what he said: “De bolletjes van bubblewrap laten knallen? Na het zien van deze gruwelijke film nooit meer”. And I agree, after seeing this *horror film* I will never ever pop a bubble wrap again (2x)

This post is tagged as Friday Foolery post (#9)