Medpedia, the Medical Wikipedia, is Dead. And we Missed its Funeral…

12 07 2013

In a post about Wikipedia in 2009 I suggested that initiatives like Ganfyd or Medpedia, might be a solution to Wikipedia’s accuracy and credibility problems, because only health experts are allowed to edit or contribute to the content of these knowledge bases.

MedPedia is a more sophisticated platform than Ganfyd, which looks more like a simple medical encyclopedia. A similar online encyclopedia project with many medical topics, Google Knol, was discontinued by Google as of May 1, 2012.

But now it appears Medpedia may have followed Google KNOL into the same blind alley.

Medpedia was founded in 2007 [2a] by James Currier, an entrepreneur and investor [2b], and an early proponent of social media. He founded the successful Tickle in 1999, when the term Web 2.0 was coined, but not yet mainstream. And his list of  investments is impressive: Flickr, Branchout and Goodreads for instance.

On its homepage Medpedia was described as a “long term, worldwide project to evolve a new model for sharing and advancing knowledge about health, medicine and the body.”
It was developed in association with top medical schools and organizations such as Harvard, Stanford, American College of Physicians, and the NHS. Medpedia was running on the same software and under the same license as Wikipedia and aimed both at the public and  the experts. Contrary to Wikipedia only experts were qualified to contribute to the main content (although others could suggest changes and new topics). [3, 4 , 5, 6] In contrast to many other medical wikis, Medpedia featured a directory of medical editor profiles with general and Medpedia-specific information. This is far more transparent than wikis without individual author recognition [5].

Although promising, Medpedia never became a real success. Von Muhlen wrote in 1999 [4] that there were no articles reporting success metrics for Medpedia or similar projects. In contrast, Wikipedia remains immensely popular among patients and doctors.

Health 2.0 pioneers like E-Patient Dave (@ePatientDave) and Bertalan Meskó (@berci) saw Medpedia’s Achilles heel right from the start:

Bertalan Meskó at his blog Science Roll [7]:

We need Medpedia to provide reliable medical content? That’s what we are working on in Wikipedia.

I believe elitism kills content. Only the power of masses controlled by well-designed editing guidelines can lead to a comprehensive encyclopaedia.

E-patient Dave (who is a fierce proponent of participatory medicine where everyone, medical expert or not, works in partnership to produce accurate information), addresses his concern in his post

“Medpedia: Who gets to say what info is reliable?” [8]

The title says it all. In Dave’s opinion it is “an error to presume that doctors inherently have the best answer” or as Dave summarizes his concern: “who will vet the vetters?”

In addition, Clay Shirky noted that some Wikipedia entries like the biopsy-entry were far more robust than the Medpedia entries [9,10 ].

Ben Toth on the other hand found the Atrial Fibrillation-Medpedia item better than the corresponding Wikipedia page in some respects, but less up-to-date [11].

In her Medpedia review in the JMLA medical librarian Melissa Rethlefsen [5] concludes that “the content of Medpedia is varied and not clearly developed, lacks topical breadth and depth and that it is more a set of ideals than a workable reference source. Another issue is that Medpedia pages never ranked high, which means its content was hardly findable in today’s Google-centric world.

She concludes that for now (2009) “it means that Wikipedia will continue to be the medical wiki of choice”.

I fear that this will be forever, for Medpedia ceased to exist.

I noticed it yesterday totally by coincidence: both my Medpedia blog badge  and Mesko’s Webicina-“Medical Librarianship in Social Medicine”-wiki page were redirected to a faulty page.

I checked the Internet, but all I could find was a message at Wikipedia:

‘It appears that Medpedia is now closed but there is no information about it closing. Their Facebook and Twitter feeds are still open but they have not been updated in a few years. Their webpage now goes to a spam site.

I checked the Waybackmachine and found the “last sparks of life” at January 2013:

11-7-2013 23-57-49 waybackmachine medpedia

This morning I contacted Medpedia’s founder James Currier, who kindly and almost instantly replied to all my questions.

These are shown (with permission) in entirety below.

=============================================================================

[me: ] I hope that you don’t mind that I use LinkedIn to ask you some questions about Medpedia.

{James:] I don’t mind at all!

Is Medpedia dead? And if so, why was it discontinued?

For now it is. We worked on it for 6 years, had a fantastic team of developers, had fantastic partners who supported us, had a fantastic core group of contributors like yourself, and I personally spent millions of dollars on it. In other words, we gave it a really good effort. But it never got the sort of scale it needed to become something important. So for the last two years, we kept looking for a new vision of what it could become, a new mission. We never found one, and it was expensive to keep running.
In the meantime, we had found a new mission that Medpedia could not be converted into, so we started a new company, Jiff, to pursue it. “Health Care in a Jiff” is the motto. Jiff continues the idea of digitizing healthcare, and making it simple and transparent for the individual, but goes after it in a very different way. More info about Jiff here: https://www.jiff.com and here https://www.jiff.com/static/newsJiff has taken our time and attention, and hopefully will produce the kinds of benefits we were hoping to see from Medpedia.

Why weren’t people informed and  was Medpedia quietly shut down?

We definitely could have done a better job with that! I apologize. We were under a tight time frame due to several things, such as people leaving the effort, technical issues around where the site was being hosted, and corporate and tax issues after 6 years of operating. So it was rushed, and we should have figured out a way to do a better job of communicating.

Couldn’t the redirection to the spam-site be prevented? And can you do something about it?

I didn’t know about that! I’ll look into it and find out what’s going on.*

Your LinkedIn profile says you’re still working for MedPedia. Why is that? Are there plans to make a new start, perhaps? And how?

Yes, I haven’t updated my LinkedIn profile in a while. I just made that change. We have no current plans to restart Medpedia. But we’re always looking for a new mission that can be self sustaining! Let me know if you have one.

And/or do you have (plans for) other health 2.0 initiatives?

Jiff is our main effort now, and there’s a wonderful CEO, Derek Newell running it.

I know you are a busy man, but I think it is important to inform all people who thought that Medpedia was a good initiative.

Thank you for saying you thought it was a good initiative. I did too! I just wish it had gotten bigger. I really appreciate your questions, and your involvement. Not all projects flourish, but we’ll all keep trying new ideas, and hopefully one will break out and make the big difference we hope for.

*somewhat later James gave an update about the redirection:

By the way, I asked about the redirect, and found out that that that page is produced by our registrar that holds the URL medpedia.com.

We wanted to put up the following message and I thought it was up:

“Medpedia was a great experiment begun in 2007.
Unfortunately, it never reached the size to be self sustaining, and it ceased operations in early 2013.
Thank you to all who contributed!”

I’m going to work again on getting that up!

============================================================================

I have one question left : what happened with all the materials the experts produced? Google Knol gave people time to export their contributions. Perhaps James Currier can answer that question too.

I also wonder why nobody noticed that Medpedia was shut down. Apparently it isn’t missed.

Finally I would like to thank all wo have contributed to this “experiment”. As a medical librarian, who is committed to providing reliable medical information, I still find it a shame that Medpedia didn’t work.

I wish James Currier all the best with his new initiatives.

References

  1. The Trouble with Wikipedia as a Source for Medical Information
    (https://laikaspoetnik.wordpress.com) (2009/09/14)
  2. [a] Medpedia and [b] James Currier , last edited at 6/30/13*  and 7/12/13 respectively (crunchbase.com)
  3. Laurent M.R. & Vickers T.J. (2009). Seeking Health Information Online: Does Wikipedia Matter?, Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 16 (4) 471-479. DOI:
  4. von Muhlen M. & Ohno-Machado L. (2012). Reviewing social media use by clinicians, Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 19 (5) 777-781. DOI:
  5. Rethlefsen M.L. (2009). Medpedia, Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA, 97 (4) 325-326. DOI:
  6. Medpedia: Reliable Crowdsourcing of Health and Medical Information (highlighthealth.com) (2009/7/24)
  7. Launching MedPedia: From the perspective of a Wikipedia administrator (scienceroll.com) (2009/2/20)
  8. Medpedia: Who gets to say what info is reliable? (e-patients.net/) (2009/2/20)
  9. Clay Shirky at MLA ’11 – On the Need for Health Sciences Librarians to Rock the Boat (mbanks.typepad.com) (2011
  10. Wikipedia vs Medpedia: The Crowd beats the Experts (http://blog.lib.uiowa.edu/hardinmd/2011/05/31
  11. Medpedia and Wikipedia (nelh.blogspot.nl) (2009/10/08)
  12. Jiff wants to do for employer wellness programs what WordPress did for blogs (medcitynews.com)
  13. Jiff Unveils Health App Development Platform, Wellness Marketplace (eweek.com)




Grand Rounds Vol 8 nr 5: Data, Information & Communication

26 10 2011

Welcome to the Grand Rounds, the weekly summary of the best health blog posts on the Internet. I am pleased to host the Grand Rounds for the second time. The first time, 2 years ago, was theme-less, but during the round we took a trip around the library. Because, for those who don’t know me, after years of biomedical research I became a medical librarian. This also explains my choice for the current theme:

DATA, INFORMATION & COMMUNICATION

The theme is meant to be broad. According to Wikipedia:

Information in its most restricted technical sense is a message (utterance or expression) or collection of messages that consists of an ordered sequence of symbols, or it is the meaning that can be interpreted from such a message or collection of messages. Information can be recorded or transmitted (…) as signs, or conveyed as signals by waves. Information is any kind of event that affects the state of a dynamic system. (…) Moreover, the concept of information is closely related to notions of … communication.. dataknowledge, meaning, .. perception. .. and especially entropy.

I am pleased that there were plenty submissions on the topic. I love the creative way the bloggers used the theme “information”. In line with the theme the information will be brought to you according to the Rule of Entropy, seemingly chaotic. Still all information is meaningful and often a pleasure to read. Please Enjoy!

INDIA, WISDOM & IMAGESIMAGING

From: IBN-live (India): Book News: “Kama Sutra is about sexual & social relations”

IMAGES are a great way to tell information, especially if you don’t understand the language. The picture above is from the Kama Sutra, an ancient Indian Hindu work on human sexual behavior in Sanskrit literature. Did you know the original Kama Sutra is not all about sex and does not have any pictures? Only words, no graphic. And sadly, as a text, it isn’t widely read.

Yes, we start our trip where it ended last week, in INDIA

Our host of last week, Sumer Sethi of Sumer’s Radiology Site, shows very clear (MRI)-images of partially recanalized internal jugular vein thrombosis, in a patient with MS, possibly supporting the theory that MS is a result of chronic venous insufficiency. As readers of this blog know Laika is not impressed by n=1 data, although it may be a good starting point. However, Sumer underpins this link with a paper in J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2009. Still, a quick look at the citing papers shows many new studies don’t confirm the association of MS with cerebrospinal venous insufficiency…

Another great radiologist, also from India, isVijay Sadasivam (@scanman). No recent posts, but at Scanman’s Casebook you will find an archive of interesting radiological cases, in the form of case reports.

The quite tech savvy surgeon Dr. Dheeraj (aka Techknowdoc) explores the alternatives to the invasive and uncomfortable colonoscopy procedure at Techknowdoc’s Surgical Adventures! This post is a short illustrated guide, visualizing the differences between regular colonoscopy, capsule endoscopy and Virtual Colonoscopy. It is not hard to imagine which approach people would prefer.

Pranab (aka Skepticdoctor) makes an urgent appeal to fellow Indians to help Amit Gupta and other Indian people to get a bone marrow transplant when they need one. Amit has Acute Leukemia, but South Asians are very poorly represented in bone marrow registries, so his odds of getting a match off the registries in the US are slim. The chances are even worse for the less well-off Indians. Read at Scepticemia how you can help. For Amit, for India, for you, or worse, someone you love more than yourself….

Dr. Jen Gunter ridicules Cosmo’s to-go version of the Kama Sutra in a short series! For the “sex positions of the days” are just an offensive alliteration and woeful ignorance of female anatomy… Looking up medical information is the 3rd most common on-line activity. While there are good sites with great information that can help people be empowered about their health, there are also tons of terrible sites marred by bias and rife with the stench of snake oil. In an other post at Dr. Jen Gunter (wielding the lasso of truth) Jen reveals 10 red flags that will help you separate the wisdom from the woo.

THE POWER OF WORDS, MUSIC AND VISUAL ARTS

http://www.flickr.com/photos/isfullofcrap/5147100521/

Yes, a picture is worth a thousand words. And this is also true for other audiovisual arts. 

Yet, some Medical Bloggers master the art of storytelling, they convey of events in words, images and sounds. And here, words have the same powerful strength. Often these posts of these storytellers are about communication and they know how to communicate that.

One of the master storytellers is Bongi, a general surgeon from South Africa. He submitted the post die taal (that language), which is clearly about communication but in a language (“Afrikaans”), that I can understand, but many of you don’t. Therefore I choose another post at Other Things Amanzi, which is also about communication: “It’s all in the detail”

Another great storyteller, and the winner of the best literary medical blog category of Medgadget contest in 2009 and 2010 is StorytellERdoc. In the beautiful post The Reminder – EKG #6, he tells us how the 6th abnormal EKG in a presentation of one of the residents, brought back memories to the technician who made that EKG: “There is something more important about this EKG than it’s tracing, I began” ….

Robbo (Andrew Roberts) is a pharmacist from one of the most remote parts of Australia working full time in Aboriginal Health. His blog BitingTheDust often covers topics like aboriginal art and pharmacy. There is also a category “information-resources”. His latest post in this category explains how condoms are made and how they work. A video goes with it.

Øystein of  The Sterile Eye (Life, death and surgery through a lens) uses photos throughout his blog. His latest post is about a brochure “LEICA – Fotografie in der Medizin” (Photography in Medicine) that was published by Leitz in 1961.

Another blogger, unique in its kind, “raps” his stories. Yes I’m talking about Zubin, better known as ZDoggMD. Watch how he and his mates colleagues rap “Doctors Today!” where he “informs” folks of what it’s like to actually practice primary care medicine on the front lines. Want to know more about this medical rapper, then listen to this radio interview with a med-student run radio (RadioRounds). It’s about using video to “inform” patients and healthcare providers about health-related issues in a humorous way.

Movies are also a good way to “tell a story” and pass information. Ramona Bates reviews the Lifetime’s Movie “Five” at her blog Suture for a Living. Five is an anthology of five short very emotional (but not sentimental) films exploring the impact of breast cancer on people’s lives.

We have had pictures, music, videos and movies as data carriers. But here is a post that is based on the good old book. Dr. Deborah Serani (who has a blog of her own: Dr. Deb: Psychological Perspectives) submits a review from PsychCentral about her new book “Living with Depression.” My first intuitive response: how can a psychologist or psychoanalyst write about “living with“. But it seems that Deborah Serani has faced a lifelong struggle with depression herself. This memoir/self help book seems a great resource for anyone in the health field looking for information about mood disorders, treatments and recommendations. The review makes me want to read this book.

SOCIAL MEDIA & MOBILE APPS

http://www.flickr.com/photos/verbeeldingskr8/4507350257/

What about social media as a tool for medical communication and a source of information?

At Diabetes Mine Allison B. and Amy Tenderich review numerous new mobile apps for managing diabetes. Their reviews “Diabetes? There’s An App For That” and “Glooko: iPhone Diabetes Logging Made Super-Easy” may help to choose diabetes patients among the bevvy of diabetes apps.

Twitter is seen as offering more noise than signal, but there’s valid medical data that can be uncovered. Ryan DuBosar at the ACP internist blog highlights how a researcher uses Twitter to track attitudes about vaccination and how they correlate with vaccination rates. The study adds to a growing body of evidence that social networking can be used to track diseases and other natural disasters that affect public health.

Hot from the press, I can’t resist to include a post from the web 2.0 pioneer Dr. Ves at CasesBlog. Ves Dimov usually writes many short posts, but today he explains Social media in Medicine in depth and guides you “How to be a Twitter superstar and help your patients and your practice”. According to his interesting concept two Cycles, the cycle of Patient Education and the Cycle of Online Information and Physician Education, work together as two interlocking cogwheels.

Mayo Clinic started using social media for communication with patients well before all the recent hype and it organized tweetcamps back in 2009. David Harlow made the pilgrimage to Rochester, MN and spoke at the Mayo Clinic Center for Social Media’s Health Care Social Media Summit last week. According to David “A ton of information was presented, through traditional channels and through some multimedia demos as well”. He shares conference highlights in this post at HealthBlawg, like “It is impossible to transplant a successful program from one location to another without taking into account myriad local conditions”. And “health care providers will have to do more with less”. Therefore e-Patient Dave suggests in his closing keynote to “Let Patients Help”.

Nicholas Fogelson of Academic OB/GYN notes that an operating room without incentives is very expensive. He proposes to install a cheap digital toteboard in every operating room in the USA, that would read how many dollars have been spent on that case at that moment. The idea is that surgeons who know exactly what they are spending, would compete to spend less wherever they could.

According to Bryan Vartabedian the social and technological innovations cause doctors to slowly change from analog physicians to digital physicians. He mentions 6 differences between these doctors. The first is that the information consumption of the digital physician is web-based, while the analog doctor consumes information through paper books and journals, often saying curious things like, “I like the smell of paper” or “I’ve gotta be able to hold it.” By the way, Bryan’s blog 33 Charts is all about social media and medicine.

Blogging doctors are digital doctors per definition, but that doesn’t mean they don’t want to discuss things and see each other in real life. Dr. Val of Better Health and cofounder of this Grand Rounds announces a blog conference in Los Angeles, the Blog World Expo, on November 4th, 2011. Her talk is about “physicians engaging online in social health”, but she is actually hoping that many members of the medical blogging community will be out there IRL! At her blog you can get discount tickets.

The online presence of doctors at social media places can have serious drawbacks. The post of Anne Marie Cunningham about derogatory and cynical humour as displayed by medical personnel at Twitter and Facebook has made it to the Daily Telegraph, other UK newspaper, and to my blog…. This post at Wishful thinking in medical education is a must read for healthcare providers embracing social media.

Many physicians have an online presence, but do they really use social media for decision making, wonders Chris Nickson. From his post and the ensuing reactions at Life in the Fast Lane it appears that tools like Twitter and the comments sections on blogs enable a constant, ongoing dialogue with emergency physicians and critical care experts around the world regarding puzzling clinical issues. Rarely, however, there is a direct ‘tweet’ for clinical help. Rather Twitter contributes to the serendipitously finding of relevant and significant information.

Perhaps direct clinical questions are not asked because Twitter (and Facebook to some extent) are open social media. Bertalan Mesko of ScienceRoll mentions that some French doctors actually perform case presentations on Google+, taking advantage of the very simple privacy settings of Google+. They upload information about the case, discuss it with other peers and get to a final diagnosis.

E-Patient Dave announced a seven hour event about information transfer during transitions of care. This event was webcasted, tweeted and discussed on Google+. (also see Brian Ahier’s post about it on Government Health IT). Dave gives some examples that highlight that without reliable information transition, the care transition can become dangerous. Yes, good IT can help.

DATA, DATABASES, OPEN ACCESS, EBM

http://www.flickr.com/photos/verbeeldingskr8/4029292954/

We now arrive at a clinical librarian topic, medical information via databases, journals and the role of EBM.

The first post bridges this and the previous topic. Jon Brassey is co-founder of  the TRIP-database, a clinical search tool designed to rapidly identify the highest quality clinical evidence for clinical practice. At his blog Liberating the Literature he expresses his view that search is -at best- a partial solution. He is passionate about answering clinician’s questions and would rather see an answer machine than a search engine. Jon is very tempted to allow users to upload their own Q&As, thereby creating an open repository of clinical Q&As. I am more skeptical, because this kind of EBM sharing might be at the expense of the quality of evidence.

What do you think? Can social media and EBM reinforce each other or not? Please tweet your ideas to Anabel Bentley (@doctorblogs at Twitter) who is giving a talk at Evidence 2011 (#ev2011) tomorrow on social media & EBM and asks for your input. You might also want to read my older post about The Web 2.0-EBM Medicine split.

Dean Giustini reviews PubMed Health at The Search Principle Blog. Dean describes PubMed Health as follows. It is as a consumer version of PubMed – a metasearch tool that gathers evidence from Cochrane Collaboration, Nice and other EBM sources to see clinical studies and “what works” in human health. One major benefit of PubMed Health is that any search performed on PubMed Health also runs in PubMed.” Sounds like worth trying.

The invitation to join the editorial board of a relatively new online, open access journal, without receiving any compensation triggered Skeptic Scalpel to ponder about the tangible benefits of open access publishers (coined as “predatory open access” by a commenter) and about how many journals are really needed? Who has the time or interest to read 25 journals on a relatively specialized topic? And what about the quality of the articles in all these journals?

Indeed as The Krafty Librarian explains  the “good guys” (open access) are making just as much profit as the “bad guys.”  They both are for profit. Open Access is not the panacea that many think it is.

Tasha Stanton of Body in Mind asks the intriguing question what to do if systematic reviews on the same topic don’t all give us the same conclusions, whereas you would expect they would collate the same evidence. Tasha finds this disconcerting as for some conditions this could take ages before we could ‘trust’ the evidence. In the example discussed here an Umbrella review was helpful in assessing the evidence. Also the quality of systematic reviews is improving.

SCREENING & DIAGNOSIS. BALANCING BENEFITS & HARMS. 

From: http://www.naturalnews.com/025768_radiation_cancer_mammograms.html as seen at Science Based Medicine

Many people think screening is always a good thing and will prevent or cure a disease. But not every test is a good test and often there are both harms and benefits. It is difficult for patients to understand the true value of tests. 

Margaret Polaneczky, MD was touched by a beautiful essay in the NY Times written by a mother of a child born with Tay Sachs disease. While the mother in her loved the essay, the doctor in her cringed, because a single paragraph about the mother’s experience with prenatal screening had the potential to misinform and even frighten readers. Margaret writes a bit of a primer on Tay Sachs screening at the Blog That Ate Manhattan, mainly to set realistic expectations about what prenatal testing can and cannot accomplish.

David Williams at the Health Business Blog reasons that the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPTF) recommendations against routine use of the PSA blood test in healthy men should not have been delayed because of the the firestorm of controversy created by the 2009 screening mammography guidelines… Because uh-oh well, PSA testing is different (and David is right)…  It’s all about what kind of info we can expect from screening and where it leads us.

This month is breast cancer awareness month, meant to highlight issues of breast cancer and try to call attention to new discoveries about breast cancer. Personally I have mixed feelings about the pink ribbon exploitation of this month”, but David Gorky at Science Based Medicine points at a worse misuse: quacks seize the opportunity to spread their message against science-based modalities for the detection and treatment of breast cancer and to promote their “alternative” methods. (see Fig. above).

BIOMEDICINE, BRAINS AND THE PROCESSING OF INFORMATION

http://www.flickr.com/photos/caseorganic/3675792814/ [CC]

Dr Shock MD PhD reviews a Dutch trial that shows that availability bias contributes to diagnostic errors made by physicians. Availability bias means that a disease comes more easily to the mind of a doctor who diagnoses this disease more often. This study also suggests that analytical or reflective reasoning may help to counteract this bias.

In an intriguing post counseling psychologist Will Meek, PhD covers some of the recent research on two information processing systems as identified by Daniel Kahneman: Intuition and Reasoning. A simple experiment confirms (in my case) that we use intuition for most of the day, and occasionally use reasoning to answer more complex problems. Some people may also frame this as “head vs heart”. Both systems have their pros and cons and both are needed to make good decisions. Otherwise common problems can arise.

David Bradley of ScienceBase discusses recent research by Gallant and colleagues who were able to reconstruct a video image presented to a subject in a functional MRI machine. David dreams of uploading our dreams to Youtube and of developing a mind-machine interface to allow people with severe disabilities to communicate their thoughts and control a computer or equipment. But David is more of a scientist than a dreamer and he interviews Gallant to find out more about the validity of the technique.

Computational Biologist Walter Jessen highlights “National Biomedical Research Day” at Highlight HEALTH. “National Biomedical Research Day” was proclaimed by Bill Clinton in 1993 on the 160th anniversary of Nobel’s birth. This day celebrates the central role of biomedical research  in improving human health and longevity.

MISINFORMATION, WRONG INFORMATION AND LACK OF INFORMATION

http://www.flickr.com/photos/truthout/3901813960/
This image was paired with the story: Insurers Shun Those Taking Certain Meds

Philip Hickey at Behaviorism and Mental Health discusses homosexuality. Philip: “homosexuality is a complex phenomenon which defies simplistic explanations. Unfortunately in this field valid information and communication often take a back seat to bigotry and prejudice.”

In his post “Want go Dutch…or German…or French?” at HUB’s LIST of medical fun facts Herbert Mathewson, MD argues that “Before trying to copy other nation’s health care systems we should probably actually learn about them.” The outcomes of the Dutch switch from a system of mandatory social insurance administered by nonprofit sick funds to mandatory basic insurance that citizens had to buy from private insurance companies (“managed competition”) are appalling! I can imagine that the idea that the Dutch reforms provide a successful model for U.S. Medicare seems bizarre. (Herbert’s post is based on a NEJM article “Sobering Lessons from the Netherlands”).

Henry Stern of InsureBlog notes that as far as RomneyCare© (Massachusetts health care reform) is concerned it’s not so much lack of information per se that’s the problem. It’s information that’s wrong that gets you in trouble.

Robert Centor of Medrants simply submitted one sentence:
“I am a physician, not a provider, and Groopman agrees. – http://www.medrants.com/archives/6505″
This distinction between physicians and providers is similar to the distinction between consumers and patients, and I agree.

Rich Fogoros (DrRich) of The Covert Rationing Blog discusses recent article in the New York Times about whether nurses with a doctorate degree ought to be addressed as “doctor.” Most doctors think calling a nurse “doctor” is not appropriate and confusing for patients.
A medical student running the blog The Reflex Hammer agrees: medical students with a doctoral degree don’t introduce themselves as “Doctor” to a patient either, don’t they?
Dr Rich, an old hand, thinks otherwise. While it is indeed comforting that doctors should be so concerned about patients knowing everything they’re supposed to know, the fact (according to dr. Rich) is that the doctor-nurse controversy is a distraction.

INFORMATION YOU NEED


http://www.flickr.com/photos/nirak/1386793065/
credit: mattahan.deviantart.com/
Note: this is a librarian!!

And of course you always hope that you find the information you need or that you can inform people the right way.

Medaholic wonders whether you still would be a medical doctor if you knew that it didn’t pay as much? What sorts of information would help you determine whether this is a career worth pursuing?

The post, by Chris Langston, at the John A. Hartford Foundation blog, Health AGEnda details how interested health professionals can get information about how to apply for a new fellowship with the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovations office, and urges health professionals interested in improving health care for older adults to apply.

Hospital antimicrobial stewardship programs are prompting more appropriate prescribing of antibiotics, leading to improved patient care, less microbial resistance and lower costs, three studies show. The trick is how to convey this information so hospitals will implement these programs, as only one-third of U.S. facilities currently do. Read more at ACP Hospitalist, in the second contribution of Ryan DuBosar to this round.

We all know that adherence to prescriptions is a problem. But will the Star Ratings system increase adherence? The big question, according to Georg van Antwerp, author of Enabling Healthy Decisionsis whether consumers care about Star Ratings or just focus on lowest price point and access to pharmacies or specific medications.

Louise of the Colorado Health Insurer Insider summarizes her submission quite aptly: “Our submission is about the new Health Insurance Exchanges that will be starting here in the US soon. This post discusses how consumers will get INFORMATION about the health plans through the exchanges. Currently, consumers get their information through health insurance brokers or directly through the insurance carrier. If there are people to answer questions for consumers with the exchanges, how will the plans be more or less expensive”

The post that Reflex Hammer submitted (the one above was just picked by me) concerns informing young children about vegetables. A few weeks ago he and a classmate were invited to give a presentation to 1st graders at an inner-city school. Wishing to combat obesity, they developed a lesson plan about vegetables. They were heartened by how much the adorable kids already knew about vegetables and how enthusiastic they became about eating their greens. An adorable initiative and a great post to end this Grand Rounds, since it illustrates the importance of doctors who enjoy to take their time to inform people.

I just want to mention one other post, by Mike Cadogan at Life at the fast Lane. Mike doesn’t blog a lot lately, because he is preparing presentations for an important Emergency Medicine meeting. But Mike does share some of this journey with us in The 11 Phases Of Grief  Presentation Preparation. Reading these 11 stages, the similarities between writing a lecture and writing for Grand Rounds struck me. Except that beer had to be replaced by wine….

Mike is in stage 7-9, I am in stage 10-11. Stage 11 is Evaluation: What will I do different next time? First, I won’t go for two blog carnivals at the same time, I won’t plan a Grand Round when I’m away for the weekend* (I just need a lot of time) and I should refrain from adding posts that weren’t even submitted….

Will you remind me next time?

I hope that you enjoyed this Grand Rounds and that it wasn’t too much information. I enjoyed reading and compiling all our posts!

Related articles





Medical Information Matters: 2nd Call For Submissions

1 04 2011

You may have noticed that my blog was barely updated between November and February. Lets say I had the winter blues.

As a consequence, the Blog Carnival “Medical Information Matters” hibernated as well. Unintended… But as a host you need to actively engage in blog carnivals. Else few people will submit.

This is the reason that Martin Fenner at Gobblydook didn’t post “his edition”, but luckily he is willing to give it another try.

Here was his call for submissions (in December). I have adapted it a little to make it “up to date”.

In December April I am hosting the blog carnival Medical Information Matters, a blog carnival about – medical information. The deadline for submissions is next Tuesday this weekend, and I have already received a number of interesting posts. As Christmas is right around the corner, I thought that a good theme for the carnival would be a wish list for better medical information. This could mean many different things, e.g. a database that covers a specific area, better access to fulltext papers or clinical trial results, etc. Please submit your posts here.

So, if you have written (or are able to write) a post which fits in with this topic – or fits in with the broader theme of “medical information” or “medical library matters”, please submit the URL (permalink) of your post HERE at the Blog Carnival.

You may also submit a post of someone else. Tips are also appreciated.

See the archive for more information.

For more ideas about what to submit, here is the previous edition at Dean Giustini’s “The Search Principle blog”Medical Blogging Matters: A Carnival of Ideas, November 2010

And, no this is not a April fools day joke….





Radiation Emergency Medical Management (REMM), a Great NLM Resource for Physicians

27 03 2011

NLM’s PubMed is so well know that you almost forget NLM has a lot of other excellent resources. Of course there is NIH/NLM’s MedLine Plus, a health web site for consumers. And there is TOXNET (TOXicology Data NETwork, managed by TEHIP, SIS and NLM) which is a cluster of databases covering toxicology, hazardous chemicals, environmental health and related areas. (see factsheet).

What I didn’t know is that there are databases beyond TOXNET, one of them being Radiation Emergency Medical Management (REMM). I just found it by chance, while looking at NLMs’ apps and mobile websites. (quite a coincidence considering the recent Japanese nuclear disaster and the fact that my searches are seldom about emergencies and acute toxicities).

REMM is produced by the Department of Health and Human Services, in cooperation with the NLM, the Division of Specialized Information Services (SIS), with subject matter experts from the National Cancer Institute, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and many US and international consultants (see REMMs’ “About This Site”).

REMM is meant primarily for physicians. It aims to provide just-in-time, evidence-based, usable information with sufficient background and context to make complex issues understandable to those without formal radiation medicine expertise. It offers easy-to-follow algorithms on clinical diagnosis, treatment, and management of radiation contamination and exposure during mass casualty radiological/nuclear emergencies.

I found the site impressive. It seems very complete and yet intuitive to use. Although primarily meant for physicians, the background information about radiation emergencies looks suitable for everyone looking for factual information about radiation emergencies.

 

REMM homepage: click to enlarge

The homepage shows 9 main topics. Five of these can also reached by the drop-down menu at the top (shown: initial event activities).

The topics (and subtopics) are arranged in a very logical way (black: also drop down menu).

  1. What Kind Of Emergency?
  2. On-site Activities
  3. Other Audiences
  4. About this site
  5. Patient Management
  6. Management Modifiers
  7. Tools & Guidelines
  8. Reference/Data Center

At the right, is a column with features and quick links. Very handy if you want to quickly access a specific topic, like Patient Management Algorithms and Dose Estimator for Exposure. There is also a separate page with information for new users: New Users: Where Do I Start?

So depending on one’s knowledge and the situation one can choose where to start.

In the Japanese situation one could start with : “what kind of emergency” and choose Nuclear Reactor Accidents. Here you find basic info about a nuclear reactor, about emergency planning and control, and radioisotopes in the plume. The differences between external exposure to highly radioactive materials within the reactor, and external and internal radioactive contamination is explained in a very concise, but clear way.

From here one could go to initial on-site activities with very important first steps, like Notify appropriate authorities, Wear personal protective equipment (PPE), Use personal dosimeters etc, and to “Manage the Victims: Triage, Treat, Transport”

A very useful part of the websites are the practical triage guidelines, algorithms (see here the algorithm for contamination only; the Fig. below only shows the top part) and calculators

Part of the algorithm: Contamination: Diagnose/Manage (see text)

They have also made many video-instructions available on YouTube. Here is one YouTube video showing 3 biodosimetry tools:

As said there is also a Mobile version of REMM with selected, key files: the content has just been updated for 3 existing platforms (For iPhone®/iPod touch®, For Blackberry®, For Windows Mobile®). It should also include a new Android version, which I fail to find on the site.

In addition, the entire REMM web site can be downloaded to a laptop or desktop computer for use where there is no Internet connection.

To keep updated and join discussions you can join the REMM ListServ.

Abbreviations





Medical Information Matters 2.10 is up at The Search Principle Blog

16 11 2010

In case you missed it: the new edition of Medical Information Matters (edition 2.10) – formerly MedLibs Round is up at the well-known blog “Search Principles” of the equally well-known Dean Giustini, a knowledgeable, helpful and friendly Canadian medical librarian, one of the first bloggers, a web 2.0 pioneer, author of many papers (like this one in the BMJ), main contributor to the UBC Health Library Wiki, educator and expert in EBM. Need I say more?

With a wink to the name of the blog carnival, Dean gave his post the title: Medical Blogging Matters: A Carnival of Ideas, November 2010

And indeed, his post is a real ode to medical bloggers and medical blogging

Dean:

With the rise of Twitter, and the emphasis placed on ‘real time’ idea-sharing and here-I-am visibility on the social web, I often wonder where blogging (all kinds) will be in five years. Perhaps it’s a dying art form.

However, this month, the ‘art of blogging’ seems to be in ample evidence throughout the medical blogosphere and the array of postings illustrates a vast diversity of approaches and opinions. In the posts mentioned, you’ll recognize many of the top names in medical blogging – these dedicated, talented professionals continue to work hard at updating their blogs regularly while carrying on with their work as medical librarians, informaticists and physicians.

Dean started his post by saying

It’s my great honour to be this month’s host for Medical Information Matters — the official name for the medical blog carnival (formerly MedLibs Round) where the “best blog posts in the field of medical information” are shared by prominent bloggers. I am very proud to consider many of these bloggers to be my colleagues and friends.”

But the honor is all mine! I’m glad I finally “dared” to ask him to host this blog carnival and that he accepted it without hesitation. And I, too, consider many of these bloggers, including Dean, to be my colleagues and friends. (Micro)blogging has made the world smaller…

Here are a few tweets mentioning this edition of the blog carnival, showing that it is widely appreciated (see more here):

  1. Dean Giustini
    giustini Here comes “Medical Blogging Matters: A Carnival of Ideas, November 2010” http://bit.ly/aDzkLT [did I miss anyone? let me know]
  2. Francisco J Grajales
  3. westr
    westr Some big names in there! RT @pfanderson Medical blogging MATTERS http://bit.ly/aDzkLT
  4. Ves Dimov, M.D.
    DrVes Medical Information Matters: the weekly best of related blog posts http://goo.gl/sBgw2
  5. Kevin Clauson

this quote was brought to you by quoteurl

Next month Medical Information Matters will be hosted by another well known blogger: Martin Fenner of Gobblydook. Martin’s blog belonged to the Nature Network, but it was recently moved to the PLOS blog network.

According to the about section:

Martin Fenner works as a medical doctor and cancer researcher at the Hannover Medical School Cancer Center in Germany. He is writing about how the internet is changing scholarly communication. Martin can be found on Twitter as @mfenner.

So it seems that Martin combines 3 professions, that of a doctor, researcher, and a medical information specialist. This promises a wonderful round again.

The deadline for submission is Saturday December 4th (or perhaps even Sunday 5th).

The theme, if any, is not known yet. However, you can ALWAYS submit the URL/permalink of a recent, good quality post at:

http://blogcarnival.com/bc/submit_6092.html

(keep in touch, because we will write a call for submissions post later)

Finally a request to you all:

For 2011, I’m looking for new hosts, be it scientists, researchers, librarians, physicians or other health care workers, people who have hosted this blog carnival before, or not, people who have a longstanding reputation as blogger as well as people who just started blogging. It doesn’t matter, as long as you have a blog and you like hosting this blog carnival.

Please comment below or mail me at laika dot spoetnik at gmail dot com





MedLibs Round. Update & Call for Submissions

2 04 2010

Some news about The MedLibs Round, the monthly blog carnival of blog posts on subjects pertaining to Medical Information.

A new LOGO.

Perhaps you remember that I was looking for someone who could design a logo for this blog carnival.

And you know what. Robin has offered to do so for free!

Robin is wonderful woman and the author of two great blogs I follow: Survive the Journey (http://survivethejourney.blogspot.com/) and 365 days with Cushing’s Disease (http://cushings365.posterous.com/). The latter blog documents the life of a Cushing’s Disease patient and survivor with pictures.

Of course Robin needs some help. What should the logo look like? Any ideas?

A New Name?

A new spring, a new sound (Herman Gorter’s May). Thus,  a new logo, a new name?

The name MedLibs Round suggests it is blog carnival purely meant for medical librarians and that is not the case. Or at least it is not what I had in mind, when starting this round. This blog carnival is about medical information. Sure, medical librarians play an essential role, but I would like an exchange of thought between those who need and those who search the medical information (not mutually exclusive).

And I was also thinking, if we made a more appealing name it might be easier to make a logo (not only consisting of a book).

Most suggestions consist of “Medical Information” (instead of MedLib) and Round, Ring, Circle or Carnival. Similarly, MIR stands for Information Round (or Ring) [& can be depicted as Myrrh] etc.

Not very original, so if you have better ideas, and especially more appealing ones, this is your chance.

In fact it just needs to be clear. Like Gene Genie (http://genegenie.wordpress.com/) was clearly about Genes and Genetic Diseases.

(you need not be a contributor to this round to cast your vote)

Past & upcoming MedLibs Rounds

The last MedLibs Round was hosted by Michelle Kraft at the Krafty Librarian. You can read her compilation here.

Next months we have again a wonderful bunch of people hosting the round: In May and April the EBM blogs  The Health Informaticist (link), followed by EBM and Clinical Support Librarians@UCHC (link),

But first we will welcome Nikki Dettmar of Eagle Dawg (moved to http://eagledawg.net/) as a host once again. She is eagerly awaiting your submissions.
Officially the deadline is tomorrow night, but we don’t mind you enjoying your Easter Holiday first.

Please don’t forget to submit your post(s) (the URL of the post on your blog) here.





Three Editions of the MedLibs Rounds & Call for Submissions!

2 03 2010

I’m running behind…. Two Three editions of the MedLibs Round have already been published since my last post on the subject.
The MedLibs Round -as you may know- is a monthly blog carnival of blog posts on subjects pertaining to medical information.

At one point almost half of my posts was about a Grand Round, the MedLibs Round or whatever Round. So I decided not to summarize each round, because that might be annoying for some of my readers.

On the other hand the MedLibs Round is my child, my little toddler. It must be cherished and nurtured to let it grow. I should be a better parent.

Last three times the Round was hosted by three wonderful hosts.

December 15th the MedLibs Round was hosted by Knowledge beyond words, the blog of Novoseek, a biomedical search engine. Novoseek succeeded to host a very interesting MedLibs Round entitled: “Social media, web services and tips for health in MedLib’s Round 1.9

A sparkling New Year Edition (MedLibs Round 1.10) was hosted at Dr. Shock MD PhD, a neurostimulating blog.

Finally the second year of this blog carnival (2.1) was started by Patricia Anderson at Emerging Technologies Librarian. This edition was plagued by too few relevant submissions, and too much spam. This was a pity because the theme was really interesting: “Free Speech in Health Information, and More“. Hopefully Patricia would like to give it another try later.

Of course we don’t want this to happen to our next host, Michelle Kraft, also known as The Krafty Librarian (her blog name). Michelle doesn’t need an introduction I guess. With Patricia she is one of the first -and most well known- medical librarian bloggers.

Michelle is really looking forward to some good quality post that she can include in her blog carnival.

She doesn’t have a theme in mind, as long as your post is related to medicine and libraries in some way. Some topic examples are: library technology, librarianship, Evidence Based Medicine (EBM), PubMed, bibliographic databases, information literacy, open access, print vs. online, medical apps, library apps, mobile technology, user education.
Note that some subject need not be strictly medical either, i.e. SCOPUS, database management or open access.

So Michelle asks all of you medical, health, and library bloggers out there to consider submitting one of you posts to the carnival. Posts can be written especially for this carnival or may be recently published posts on the subject. And if you’ve read an excellent post elsewhere you can tip Michelle and/or ask the author to submit. We need your input!

Just submit the URL of your post by March 6, 2010 to the Carnival Submission form.

The post will be up Tuesday March 9, 2010 at the Krafty Librarian.

For more info see the Call for Submissions -post at http://kraftylibrarian.com/?p=418 and the MedLibs Archive here

And people who like to write a post but have no blog are invited to write a guest post here. Just leave a comment or contact me by email:

laika.spoetnik@gmail.com

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]




Presentation at the #NVB09: “Help, the doctor is drowning”

16 11 2009

15-11-2009 23-24-33 nvb congressenLast week I was invited to speak at the NVB-congress, the Dutch society for librarians and information specialists. I replaced Josje Calff in the session “the professional”, chaired by Bram Donkers of the magazine InformatieProfessional. Other sessions were: “the client”, “the technique” and “the connection”. (see program)

It was a very successful meeting, with Andrew Keen and Bas Haring in the plenary session. I understand from tweets and blogposts that @eppovannispen en @lykle who were in parallel sessions were especially interesting.
Some of the (Dutch) blogposts (Not about my presentation….pfew) are:

I promised to upload my presentation to Slideshare. And here it is.

Some slides are different from the original. First, Slideshare doesn’t allow animation, (so slides have to be added to get a similar effect), second I realized later that the article and search I showed in Ede were not yet published, so I put “top secret” in front of it.

The title refers to a Dutch book and film: “Help de dokter verzuipt” (“Help the doctor is drowning”).

Slides 2-4: NVB-tracks; why I couldn’t discuss “the professional” without explaining the changes with which the medical profession is confronted.

Slides 5-8: Clients of a medical librarian (dependent on where he/she works).

Slides 9-38: Changes to the medical profession (less time, opinion-based medicine gradually replaced by evidence based medicine, information overload, many sources, information literacy)

Slides 39-66: How medical librarians can help (‘electronic’ collection accessible from home, study landscape for medical students, less emphasis on books, up to date with alerts (email, RSS, netvibes), portals (i.e. for evidence based searching), education (i.e. courses, computer workshops, e-learning), active participation in curriculum, helping with searches or performing them).

Slides 67-68: Summary (Potential)

Slide 69: Barriers/Risks: Money, support (management, contact persons at the departments/in the curriculum), doctors like to do it theirselves (it looks easy), you have to find a way to reach them, training medical information specialists.

Slides 70-73 Summary & Credits

Here are some tweets related to this presentation.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]




The Trouble with Wikipedia as a Source for Medical Information

14 09 2009

This post was chosen as an Editor's Selection for ResearchBlogging.org

Do you ever use Wikipedia? I do and so do many other people. It is for free, easy to use, and covers many subjects.

But do you ever use Wikipedia to look up scientific or medical information? Probably everyone does so once in a while. Dave Munger (Researchblogging) concluded a discussion on Twitter as follows:

Logo of the English Wikipedia
Image via Wikipedia

“Wikipedia’s information quality is better than any encyclopedia, online or off. And, yes, it’s also easy to use”.

Wikipedia is an admirable initiative. It is a large online collaborative, multilingual encyclopedia written by contributors around the world.
But the key question is whether you can rely on Wikipedia as the sole source for medical, scientific or even popular information.

Well, you simply can’t and here are a few examples/findings to substantiate this point.

RANKING AND USE

E-patients

When you search  for diabetes in Google (EN), Wikipedia’s entry about diabetes ranks second, below the American Diabetes Association Home Page. A recent study published in the J Am Med Inform Assoc [1] confirms what you would expect: that the English Wikipedia is a prominent source of online health information. Wikipedia ranked among the first ten results in more than 70% of search engines and health-keywords tested, and outranked other sources in case of rare disease-related keywords. Wikipedia’s articles were viewed more frequently than the corresponding MedlinePlus Topic pages. This corroborates another study that can be downloaded from the internet here [10]. This study by Envision Solutions, LLC, licensed under the Creative Commons License, concluded that the exposure of Internet user’s to health-related user-generated media (UGM) is significant, Wikipedia being the most reference resource on Google and Yahoo.

The following (also from envisionsolutionsnow.com, from 2007 [10]) illustrates the impact of this finding:

According to the Pew Internet & American Life Project*, 10 million US adults search online for information on health each day [1]. Most (66%) begin their research on a search engine like Yahoo or Google. In addition, Americans are saying that the information they find on the Internet is having an impact. According to Pew, “53% of health seekers report that their most recent health information session [influenced] how they take care of themselves or care for someone else.” In addition, 56% say the information they find online has boosted their confidence in their healthcare decision-making abilities.

And according to an update from the Pew Internet & American Life Project (2009) [11]:

In 2000, 46% of American adults had access to the internet, 5% of U.S. households had broadband connections, and 25% of American adults looked online for health information. Now, 74% of American adults go online, 57% of American households have broadband connections, and 61% of adults look online for health information.

Thus a lot of people look online for health care questions and are more inclined to use highly ranked sources.
This is not unique for Health topics but is a general phenomenon, i.e. see this mini-study performed by a curious individual: 96.6% of Wikipedia Pages Rank in Google’s Top 10 [12]. The extreme high traffic to Wikipedia due to search referrals has  even been been denounced by SEO-people (see here) [13]: if you type “holiday” Wikipedia provides little value when ranking in the top 10: everybody knows what a holiday is 😉

Medical students use it too.

A nightmare for most educators in the curriculum is that students rely on UGM or Web 2.0 sites as a source  of medical information. Just walk along medical students as they work behind their computers and take a quick glance at the pages they are consulting. These webpages often belong to the above category.

AnneMarie Cunningham, GP and Clinical Lecturer in the UK, did a little informal “survey” on the subject. She asked 31 first year medical students about their early clinical attachments in primary and secondary care and summerized the results on her blog Wishful Thinking in Medical Education [14]. By far and away Wikipedia was the most common choice to look up unfamiliar clinical topics.

AnneMarie:

‘Many students said I know I shouldn’t but….’ and then qualified that they used Wikipedia first because it was easy to understand, they felt it was reasonably reliable, and accessible. One student used it to search directly from her phone when on placement..

50% of the doctors use it!

But these are only medical students. Practicing doctors won’t use Wikipedia to solve their clinical questions, because they know where to find reliable medical information.

Wrong!

The New Scientist cites a report [15] of US healthcare consultancy Manhattan Research (April 2009), stating that that 50 percent of the doctors turn to Wikipedia for medical information.

A recent qualitative study published in Int J Med Inform [2] examined the “Web 2.0” use by 35 junior physicians in the UK. Diaries and interviews encompassing 177 days of internet use or 444 search incidents, analyzed via thematic analysis. Although concepts are loosely defined (Web 2.0, internet and UMG are not properly defined, i.e. Google is seen as a web 2.0 tool (!) [see Annemarie’s critical review [16] the results clearly show that 89% of these young physicians use at least one “Web 2.0 tool” (including Google!) in their medical practice, with 80% (28/35) reporting the use of wikis. The visit of wiki’s is largely accounted for by visits to Wikipedia: this was the second most commonly visited site, used in 26% (115/44) of cases and by 70% (25/35) of all physicians. Notably, only one respondent made regular contribution to a medical wiki site.

The main motivation for using the Internet for information seeking was the accessibility and ease of use over other tools (like textbooks), the uptodateness, the broad coverage and the extras such as interactive immages. On the other hand most clinicians realized that there was a limitation in the quality or usefulness of information found. It is reassuring that most doctors used UGM like Wikipedia for background or open questions, to fulfill the need for more in depth knowledge on a subject, or to find information for patients, not for immediate solving of clinical questions.

The Int J Med Inform article has been widely covered by blogs: i.e. see Wishful Thinking in Medical Education [16], Dr Shock, MD, PhD [17], Life in the Fast Lane [18], Clinical Cases and Images Blog [19] and Scienceroll [20].

Apparently some doctors also heavily rely on Wikipedia that they refer to Wikipedia articles in publications (see the Int. J Cardiol. PubMed [3] abstract below)!!

8-9-2009 14-03-15 Int J cardiol wikipedia references 2

WHY WIKIPEDIA IS NOT (YET) A TRUSTWORTHY AND HIGH QUALITY HEALTH SITE

Whether the common use of Wikipedia by e-patient, medical students and doctors is disadvantageous depends on the quality and the trustworthiness of the Wikipedia articles, and that is in its turn dependent on who writes the articles.

Basically, the strength of Wikipedia is it weakness: anyone can write anything on any subject, and anyone can edit it, anonymously.

Negative aspects include its coverage (choice of subjects but also the depth of coverage), the “overlinking”, the sometimes frustating interactions between authors and editors, regularly leading to (often polite) “revision wars“, but above all the lack of ‘expert’ authors or peer review. This may result in incomplete, wrong or distorted information.

Positive aspects are its accessibility, currency, availability in many languages, and the collective “authorship” (which is an admirable concept).

The following humorist video shows how the wisdom of the crowds can lead to chaos, incorrect and variable information.

SCOPE AND ACCURACY (What has been covered, how deep and how good) :

Too much, too little, too ….

With respect to its coverage one study in the Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication (2008) [4] concludes:

Differences in the interests and attention of Wikipedia’s editors mean that some areas, in the traditional sciences, for example, are better covered than others. (…)
Overall, we found that the degree to which Wikipedia is lacking depends heavily on one’s perspective. Even in the least covered areas, because of its sheer size, Wikipedia does well, but since a collection that is meant to represent general knowledge is likely to be judged by the areas in which it is weakest, it is important to identify these areas and determine why they are not more fully elaborated. It cannot be a coincidence that two areas that are particularly lacking on Wikipedia—law and medicine—are also the purview of licensed experts.

It is not unexpected though that Wikipedia’s topical coverage is driven by the interests of its users.

Sometimes data are added to Wikipedia, that are in itself correct, but controversial. Recently, Wikipedia published the 10 inkblots (Scienceroll, [21]) of the Rorschach test, along with common responses for each. This had led to complaints by Psychologists , who argue that the site is jeopardizing one of the oldest continuously used psychological assessment tests (NY Times [22]).

The actual coverage of medical subjects may vary greatly. In one study [5], abstract-format, 2007) Wikipedia entries were screened for the most commonly performed inpatient surgical procedures in the U.S. Of the 39 procedures, 35 were indexed on Wikipedia. 85.7% of these articles were deemed appropriate for patients. All 35 articles presented accurate content, although only 62.9% (n=22) were free of critical omissions. Risks of the procedures were significantly underreported. There was a correlation between an entry’s quality and how often it was edited.

Wikipedia may even be less suitable for drug information questions, questions that one-third of all Internet health-seekers search for. A study in Annals of Pharmacotherapy [6] comparing the scope, completeness, and accuracy of drug information in Wikipedia to a free, online, traditionally edited database (Medscape Drug Reference [MDR]) showed that  Wikipedia answered significantly fewer drug information questions (40.0%) compared with MDR (82.5%; p < 0.001) and that Wikipedia answers were less complete. Although no factual errors were found, errors of omission were higher in Wikipedia (n = 48) than in MDR (n = 14). The authors did notice a marked improvement in Wikipedia over time. The authors conclude:

This study suggests that Wikipedia may be a useful point of engagement for consumers looking for drug information, but that it should be supplementary to, rather than the sole source of, drug information. This is due, in part, to our findings that Wikipedia has a more narrow scope, is less complete, and has more errors of omission versus the comparator database. Consumers relying on incomplete entries for drug information risk being ill-informed with respect to important safety features such as adverse drug events, contraindications, drug interactions, and use in pregnancy.
These errors of omission may prove to be a substantial and largely hidden danger associated with exclusive use of
user-edited drug information sources.

Alternatively, user-edited sites may serve as an effective means of disseminating drug information and are promising as a means of more actively involving consumers in their own care. However, health professionals should not use user-edited sites as authoritative sources in their clinical practice, nor should they recommend them to patients without knowing the limitations and providing sufficient additional information and counsel…

Not Evidence Based

German researches found [7], not surprisingly, that Wikipedia (as well as two major German statutory health insurances):

“…failed to meet relevant criteria, and key information such as the presentation of probabilities of success on patient-relevant outcomes, probabilities of unwanted effects, and unbiased risk communication was missing. On average items related to the objectives of interventions, the natural course of disease and treatment options were only rated as “partially fulfilled”. (..)  In addition, the Wikipedia information tended to achieve lower comprehensibility. In conclusion(..) Wikipedia (..) does not meet important criteria of evidence-based patient and consumer information though…”

Wrong, misleading, inaccurate

All above studies point at the incompleteness of Wikipedia. Even more serious is the fact that some of the Wikipedia addings are wrong or misleading. Sometimes on purpose. The 15 biggest wikipedia blunders [23] include the death announcements of Ted Kennedy (when he was still alive),  Robert Byrd and others. Almost hilarious are the real time Wikipedia revisions after the presumed death of Kennedy and the death of Ken Lay (suicide, murde, heart attack? [24).

In the field of medicine, several drug companies have been caught altering Wikipedia entries. The first drug company messing with Wikipedia was AstraZeneca. References claiming that Seroquel allegedly made teenagers “more likely to think about harming or killing themselves” were deleted by a user of a computer registered to the drug company [25], according to Times [26]. Employees of Abbott Laboratories have also been altering entries to Wikipedia to “eliminate information questioning the safety of its top-selling drugs.”(See WSJ-blog [27] , brandweeknrx.com [28], and recently Kevin MD[29])

These are “straightforward” examples of fraudulent material. But sometimes the Wikipedia articles are more subtly colored by positive or negative bias.

Take for instance the English entry on Evidence Based Medicine (in fact the reason why I started this post). Totally open-minded I checked the entry, which was automatically generated in one of my posts by Zemanta. First I was surprised by the definition of EBM:

Evidence-based medicine (EBM) aims to apply the best available evidence gained from the scientific method to medical decision making. It seeks to assess the quality of evidence of the risks and benefits of treatments (including lack of treatment).

instead of the usually cited Sacket-definition (this is only cited at the end of the paper):

“the practice of evidence based medicine means integrating individual clinical expertise with the best available external clinical evidence from systematic research”

In short, the whole article lacks cohesion: the definitions of EBM are not correct, there is too much emphasis on not directly relevant information (4 ways to grade the evidence and 3 statistical measures), the limitations are overemphasized (cf. chapter 7 with 6 in the Figure below) and put out of perspective.

Apparently this has also been noted by Wikipedia, because there is a notice on the Evidence Based Medicine Page saying:

This article has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality. Discussion of this nomination can be found on the talk page. (May 2009)

9-9-2009 9-55-04 wikipedia EBM start smal

Much to my surprise the article had been written by Mr-Natural-Health, who’s account seems not to be in use since 2004  and who is currently active as User:John Gohde. Mr Natural Health is a member of WikiProject Alternative medicine.

Now why in earth would some advocate of CAM write the Wikipedia EBM-entry? I can think of 4 (not mutually exclusive) reasons:

  1. When you’re an EBM-nonbeliever or opponent this is THE chance to misinform readers about EBM (to the advantage of CAM).
  2. The author was invited to write this entry.
  3. No EBM-specialist or epidemiologist is willing to write the entry, or to write for Wikipedia in general (perhaps because they find Wikipedia lacks trustworthiness?)
  4. EBM specialists/epidemiologists are not “allowed”/hindered to make major amendments to the text, let alone rewrite it.

According to Mr Naturopath point 2 is THE reason he wrote this article. Now the next question is “exactly by whom was he invited?” But the TALK-page reveals that Mr Naturapath makes it a tough job for other, better qualified writers, to edit the page (point 4). To see how difficult it is for someone to re-edit a page, please see the TALK-page. In fact, one look at this page discourages me from ever trying to make some amendments to any Wikpedia text.

SOLUTIONS?

Changes to Wikipedia’s organization

Wikipedia has long grasped that its Achilles heel is the free editability (see for instance this interview with Wikipedia’s founder [30]). Therefore, “WikiProjects” was initiated to help coordinate and organize the writing and editing of articles on a certain topic, as well as “Citizendium” which is an English-language wiki-based free encyclopedia project aimed to improve the Wikipedia model by providing a “reliable” encyclopedia. “It hopes to achieve this by requiring all contributors to use their real names, by strictly moderating the project for unprofessional behavior, by providing what it calls “gentle expert oversight” of everyday contributors, and also through its “approved articles,” which have undergone a form of peer-review by credentialed topic experts and are closed to real-time editing.”

Starting this fall Wikipedia will launch an optional feature called “WikiTrust” will color code every word of the encyclopedia based on the reliability of its author and the length of time it has persisted on the page: Text from questionable sources starts out with a bright orange background, while text from trusted authors gets a lighter shade.

9-9-2009 15-25-36 wikipedia wikiproject medicine

The Wikipedia EBM article is within the scope of these two projects, and this is good news. However, Wikipedia still clings to the idea that: “Everyone is welcome to join in this endeavor (regardless of medical qualifications!).” In my opinion, it would be better if Wikipedia gave precedence to experts instead of hobbyists/ people from another field, because the former can be expected to know what they are talking about. It is quite off-putting for experts to contribute. See this shout-out:

Who are these so-called experts who will qualify material? From what I’ve seen so far, being an academic expert in a particular field hardly protects one from edit wars–Julie and 172 are two primary examples of this. Meanwhile, the only qualification I have seen so far is that they have a B.A. Gimme a friggin’ break! (and before I get accused of academic elitism, I make it known that I dropped out of college and spend an inordinate amount of time at work correcting the BS from the BAs, MAs, and PhDs).

While anyone can still edit entries, the site is testing pages that require changes to be approved by an experienced Wikipedia editor before they show up, the so called Flagged protection and patrolled revisions. (see Wikimedia) This proposal is only for articles that are currently under normal mechanisms of protection (i.e. the Obama-article cannot be edited by a newcomer).

Although this seems logic, it is questionable whether “experienced” editors are per definition better qualified than newcomers. A recent interesting analysis of the Augmented Social Cognition group [31], (cited in the Guardian [32]) shows a slowdown in growth of Wikipedia activity, with the activity slightly declining in all classes of editors except for the highest-frequency class of editors (1000+ edits). Here is an increase in their monthly edits.

In addition the study shows growing resistance from the Wikipedia community to new content. The total percentage of reverted edits increased steadily over the years, but more interestingly, low-frequency or occasional editors experienced a visibly greater resistance compared to high-frequency editors . Together this points at a growing resistance from the Wikipedia community to new content, especially when the edits come from occasional editors.

This is more or less in line with an earlier finding [9] showing that Wikipedia members feel more comfortable expressing themselves on the net than off-line and scored lower on agreeableness and openness compared to non-Wikipedians, a finding that was interpreted as consistent with the possibility that contributing to Wikipedia serves mainly egocentric motives.

Image representing Medpedia as depicted in Cru...
Image via CrunchBase

Encouraging students, doctors and scientists (provisional)

One way of improving content, is to encourage experts to write. To achieve that the information on Wikipedia is of the highest quality and up-to-date, the NIH is encouraging its scientists and science writers to edit and even initiate Wikipedia articles in their fields [36]. It joined with the Wikimedia Foundation, to host  a training session on the tools and rules of wiki culture, at NIH headquarters in Bethesda.

A less noncommital approach is the demand to “Publish in Wikipedia or perish”, as described in Nature News [9]. Anyone submitting to a section of the journal RNA Biology will, in the future, be required to also submit a Wikipedia page that summarizes the work. The journal will then peer review the page before publishing it in Wikipedia.” The project is described in detail here [10] and the wiki can be viewed here

Wiki’s for experts.

One possible solution is that scientist and medica experts contribute to wiki’s other than the Wikipedia. One such wiki is the wiki-surgery [5]. PubDrugRxWiki , WikiProteins [11] and Gene Wiki [12] are other examples. In general, scientists are more inclined to contribute to these specialists wiki’s, that have oversight and formal contributions by fellow practitioners (this is also true for the RNA-wiki)

A medical Wikipedia

Yet another solution is a medical wikipedia, such as Ganfyd or Medpedia . Ganfyd is written by medical professionals. To qualify to edit or contribute to the main content of Medpedia approved editors must have an M.D., D.O., or Ph.D. in a biomedical field. Others, however, may contribute by writing in suggestions for changes to the site using the “Make a suggestion” link at the top of each page. Suggestions are reviewed by approved editors. Whether these medical wikipedias will succeed will depend on the input of experts and their popularity: to what extent will they be consulted by people with health questions?

I would like to end with a quote from Berci during twitterview (link in Wikipedia):

@Berci : @diariomedico And as Wikipedians say, Wikipedia is the best source to start with in your research, but should never be the last one. #DM1 9 months ago

REFERENCES

ResearchBlogging.orgScientific Articles

  1. Laurent, M., & Vickers, T. (2009). Seeking Health Information Online: Does Wikipedia Matter? Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 16 (4), 471-479 DOI: 10.1197/jamia.M3059
  2. Hughes, B., Joshi, I., Lemonde, H., & Wareham, J. (2009). Junior physician’s use of Web 2.0 for information seeking and medical education: A qualitative study International Journal of Medical Informatics, 78 (10), 645-655 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2009.04.008
  3. Lee, C., Teo, C., & Low, A. (2009). Fulminant dengue myocarditis masquerading as acute myocardial infarction International Journal of Cardiology, 136 (3) DOI: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2008.05.023
  4. Halavais, A., & Lackaff, D. (2008). An Analysis of Topical Coverage of Wikipedia Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13 (2), 429-440 DOI: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2008.00403.x
  5. Devgan, L., Powe, N., Blakey, B., & Makary, M. (2007). Wiki-Surgery? Internal validity of Wikipedia as a medical and surgical reference Journal of the American College of Surgeons, 205 (3) DOI: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2007.06.190
  6. Clauson, K., Polen, H., Boulos, M., & Dzenowagis, J. (2008). Scope, Completeness, and Accuracy of Drug Information in Wikipedia Annals of Pharmacotherapy, 42 (12), 1814-1821 DOI: 10.1345/aph.1L474 (free full text)
  7. Mühlhauser I, & Oser F (2008). [Does WIKIPEDIA provide evidence-based health care information? A content analysis] Zeitschrift fur Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualitat im Gesundheitswesen, 102 (7), 441-8 PMID: 19209572
  8. Amichai–Hamburger, Y., Lamdan, N., Madiel, R., & Hayat, T. (2008). Personality Characteristics of Wikipedia Members CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11 (6), 679-681 DOI: 10.1089/cpb.2007.0225
  9. Butler, D. (2008). Publish in Wikipedia or perish Nature DOI: 10.1038/news.2008.1312
  10. Daub, J., Gardner, P., Tate, J., Ramskold, D., Manske, M., Scott, W., Weinberg, Z., Griffiths-Jones, S., & Bateman, A. (2008). The RNA WikiProject: Community annotation of RNA families RNA, 14 (12), 2462-2464 DOI: 10.1261/rna.1200508
  11. Mons, B., Ashburner, M., Chichester, C., van Mulligen, E., Weeber, M., den Dunnen, J., van Ommen, G., Musen, M., Cockerill, M., Hermjakob, H., Mons, A., Packer, A., Pacheco, R., Lewis, S., Berkeley, A., Melton, W., Barris, N., Wales, J., Meijssen, G., Moeller, E., Roes, P., Borner, K., & Bairoch, A. (2008). Calling on a million minds for community annotation in WikiProteins Genome Biology, 9 (5) DOI: 10.1186/gb-2008-9-5-r89
  12. Huss, J., Orozco, C., Goodale, J., Wu, C., Batalov, S., Vickers, T., Valafar, F., & Su, A. (2008). A Gene Wiki for Community Annotation of Gene Function PLoS Biology, 6 (7) DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0060175
    Other Publications, blogposts
    (numbers in text need to be adapted)

  13. Envision Solutions, LLC. Diving Deeper Into Online Health Search – Examining Why People Trust Internet Content & The Impact Of User-Generated Media (2007) http://www.envisionsolutionsnow.com/pdf/Studies/Online_Health_Search.pdf Accessed August 2009 (CC)
  14. New data available of the the Pew Internet & American Life Project are available here)
  15. http://www.thegooglecache.com/white-hat-seo/966-of-wikipedia-pages-rank-in-googles-top-10/
  16. http://www.seoptimise.com/blog/2008/05/why-wikipedias-google-rankings-are-a-joke.html
  17. http://wishfulthinkinginmedicaleducation.blogspot.com/2009/06/where-do-first-year-medical-students.html
  18. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327185.500-should-you-trust-health-advice-from-the-web.html?page=1
  19. http://wishfulthinkinginmedicaleducation.blogspot.com/2009/07/where-do-junior-doctors-look-things-up.html
  20. http://www.shockmd.com/2009/07/06/how-and-why-junior-physicians-use-web-20/
  21. http://sandnsurf.medbrains.net/2009/07/how-and-why-junior-docs-use-web-20/
  22. Wikipedia used by 70% of junior physicians, dominates search results for health queries (casesblog.blogspot.com)
  23. http://scienceroll.com/2009/07/06/junior-physicians-and-web-2-0-call-for-action/
  24. http://scienceroll.com/2009/08/03/rorschach-test-scandal-on-wikipedia-poll/
  25. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/29/technology/internet/29inkblot.html (Rorschach)
  26. http://www.pcworld.com/article/170874/the_15_biggest_wikipedia_blunders.html
  27. http://www.futureofthebook.org/blog/archives/2006/07/reuters_notices_wikipedia_revi.html
  28. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=144007397
  29. http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/media/article2264150.ece
  30. http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2007/08/30/abbott-labs-in-house-wikipedia-editor/
  31. http://www.brandweeknrx.com/2007/08/abbott-caught-a.html
  32. http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2009/08/op-ed-wikipedia-isnt-really-the-patients-friend.html
  33. http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/dec2005/tc20051214_441708.htm?campaign_id=topStories_ssi_5
  34. http://asc-parc.blogspot.com/2009/08/part-2-more-details-of-changing-editor.html
  35. http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/aug/12/wikipedia-deletionist-inclusionist
  36. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/27/AR2009072701912.html
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]




The Web 2.0-EBM Medicine split. [1] Introduction into a short series.

4 01 2009

Since the three years I’m working as a medical information specialist, I’ve embraced the concept of evidence based medicine or EBM. As a searcher I spend hours if not days to find as much relevant evidence as possible on a particular subject, which others select, appraise and synthesize to a systematic review or an evidence based guideline. I’m convinced that it is important to find the best evidence for any given intervention, diagnosis, prognostic or causal factor.

Why? Because history has shown that despite their expertise and best intentions, doctors don’t always know or feel what’s best for their patients.

An example. For many years corticosteroids had been used to lower intracranial pressure after serious head injury, because steroids reduce the inflammation that causes the brain to swell. However, in the 1990’s, meta-analyses and evidence-based guidelines called the effectiveness of steroids into question. Because of the lack of sufficiently large trials, a large RCT (CRASH) was started. Contrary to all expectations, there was actually an excess of 159 deaths in the steroid group. The overall absolute risk of death in the corticosteroid group was shown to be increased with 2%. This means that the administration of corticosteroids had caused more than 10,000 deaths before the 1990’s.[1,2,3]

Another example. The first Cochrane Systematic Review, shows the results of a systematic review of RCTs of a short, inexpensive course of a corticosteroid given to women about to give birth too early. The diagram below, which is nowadays well known as the logo of the Cochrane Collaboration, clearly shows that antenatal corticosteroids reduce the odds of the babies dying from the complications of immaturity by 30 to 50 per cent (diamond left under). Strikingly, the first of these RCTs showing a positive effect of corticosteroids, was already reported in 1972. By 1991, seven more trials had been reported, and the picture had become still stronger. Because no systematic review of these trials had been published until 1989, most obstetricians had not realized that the treatment was so effective. As a result, 10.000s of premature babies have probably suffered and died unnecessarily. This is just one of many examples of the human costs resulting from failure to perform systematic, up-to-date reviews of RCTs of health care.[4,5]

The Cochrane logo explained

Less than I year ago I entered the web 2.0-, and (indirectly) medicine 2.0 world, via a library 2.0 course. I loved the tools and I appreciated the approach. Web 2.0 is ‘all about sharing‘ or as Dean Giustini says it: ‘all about people. It is very fast and simple. It is easy to keep abreast of new information and to meet new interesting people with good ideas and a lot of knowledge.

An example. Bertalan Mesko in a comment on his blog ScienceRoll:

I know exactly that most of these web 2.0 tools have been around for quite a long time. Most of these things are not new and regarding the software, there aren’t any differences in most of the cases. But!
These tools and services will help us how to change medicine. In my opinion, the most essential problem of medicine nowadays is the sharing of information. Some months ago, I wrote about a blogger who fights Pompe disease, a rare genetic disorder and he told me about the diagnostic delay. I try to help physicians how they can find information easier and faster. For example: I gave tips how to search for genetic diseases.

Other examples are good functioning and dedicated patient web 2.0 sites, like PatientsLikeMe.

In the medical literature, blogs and slideshare, differences between medicine 2.0 and 1.0 are already described in detail (for instance see the excellent review of Dean Giustini in the BMJ), as well as the differences between medicine 1.0 and EBM (e.g. see the review of David Sackett et al in BMJ).

However, the longer I’m involved in web 2.0, the more I feel it conflicts with my job as EBM-librarian. The approach is so much different, other tools are used and other views shared. More and more I find ideas and opinions expressed on blogs that do EBM no justice and that seem to arise out of ignorance and/or prejudice. On the other hand EBM and traditional medicine often are not aware of web 2.0 sources or mistrust them. In science, blogs and wiki’s seldom count, because they express personal views, echo pre-existing data and are superficial.

split-1231

I’m feeling like I’m in a split, with one leg in EBM and the other in web 2.0. In my view each has got his merits, and these approaches should not oppose each other but should mingle. EBM getting a lower threshold and becoming more digestible and practical, and medicine 2.0 becoming less superficial and more underpinned.

It is my goal to take an upright position, standing on both legs, integrating EBM, medicine 2.0 (as well as medicine 1.0).

As a first step I will discuss some discrepancies between the two views as I encounter it in blogs, in the form of a mini-series: “The Web 2.0-EBM Medicine split”.

Before I do so I will give a short list of what I consider characteristic for each type of medicine, EBM-, Web 1.0 (usual)- and Web 2.0- medicine. Not based on any evidence, only on experience and intuition. I’ve just written down what came to my mind. I would be very interested in your thoughts on this.

EBM – medicine

  • centered round the best evidence
  • methodology-dependent
  • objective, transparent
  • thorough
  • difficult (to make, but for many also to find and also to understand)
  • time-consuming
  • published in peer reviewed papers (except for guidelines)
  • searching: PubMed and other bibliographic databases (to produce) and guideline databases, TRIP, and PubMed (Clinical Queries) or specific sources, i.e. specialist guidelines (to find).
  • Mostly Web 1.0 (with some web 2.0 tools, like podcasts, RSS and e-learning)

Web 1.0 – traditional medicine*

  • centered round clinical knowledge, expertise and intuition
  • opinion-based
  • authority based, i.e.strong beliefs in opinion leaders, expert opinion or ‘authority opinion’ (i.e. head of departments, professor) and own authority versus patient.
  • subjective
  • fast
  • act! (motto)
  • searching: browsing ( a specific list, site or Journals), quick search, mostly via Google**, in pharmacopeia, or protocols and UpToDate seldom in Pubmed (dependent on discipline)
  • Web 1.0: mail, patient-records, quick search via Google and Pubmed

Web 2.0 medicine

  • people-centered and patient-centered (although mostly not in individual blogs of doctors)
  • heavily based on technology (easy to use and free internet software)
  • social-based: based on sharing knowledge and expertise
  • (in theory) personalized
  • subjective, nondirected.
  • often:superficial
  • fast
  • generally not peer reviewed, i.e. published on blogs and wiki’s
  • searching: mostly via free internet sources and search engines, e.g. wikipedia, emedicine, respectively Google**, health metasearch engines, like Mednar and Health Sciences Online. PubMed mainly via third-party-tools like GoPubMed, HubMed and PubReminer. (e.g. see recent listings of top bedside health search engines on Sandnsurf’s blog ‘Life in the Fast Lane’
  • heavily dependent on web 2.0 tools both for ‘publishing’, ‘finding information’ and ‘communication’

*very general. of course dependent on discipline.
** this is not merely my impression, e.g. see: this blogpost on the “Clinical Cases and Images blog” of Ves Dimov, referring to four separate interviews of Dean Giustini with Physician bloggers.

Other references

[1] Final results of MRC CRASH, a randomised placebo-controlled trial of intravenous corticosteroid in adults with head injury-outcomes at 6 months. Edwards P et al. Lancet. 2005 Jun 4-10;365(9475):1957-9.
[2] A CRASH landing in severe head injury. Sauerland S, Maegele M. Lancet. 2004 Oct 9-15;364(9442):1291-2. Comment on: Lancet. 2004 Oct 9-15;364(9442):1321-8.
[3] Corticosteroids for acute traumatic brain injury.Alderson P, Roberts IG. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2005, Issue 1. Art. No.: CD000196.
[4] http://www.cochrane.org/logo/
[5] Antenatal corticosteroids for accelerating fetal lung maturation for women at risk of preterm birth.Roberts D, Dalziel SR.Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2006, Issue 3. Art. No.: CD004454
[6] How Web 2.0 is changing medicine. Giustini D. BMJ. 2006 Dec 23;333(7582):1283-4.
[7] Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn’t. Sackett DL et al. BMJ. 1996 Jan 13;312(7023):71-2.