Doctor Wikipedia

[Cedric]

The only people I can see benefiting from this wretched state of affairs are medical malpractice attorneys. Until a significant number of doctors are suspended or struck off for using Wikipedia, or until Wikipedia itself crashes and burns, I thoroughly expect this insanity to continue.

[Mancunium]

Report: Wikipedia The Top Source Of Health Care Info For Doctors, Patients
CBS News, 29 January 2014 link

[...] Despite the issues with accuracy, the IMS Health report revealed that people trust Wikipedia enough to seek a wide-ranging cache of information about the personal health and medicine. The top 100 English Wikipedia pages for health care topics were accessed an average 1.9 million times over the course of the past year. And analysis of prescription drug sales found a correlation between page views and medicine use. “Increasingly, patients are turning to social media as an essential forum for obtaining and sharing information related to their health,” Murray Aitken, executive director of the IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics, writes in the report. [...]

“This trend only heightens the need for relevant, accurate content that can be accessed and used throughout the patient journey. Health care professionals, regulators and pharmaceutical manufacturers all need to overcome their reticence and acknowledge the vital role that they can and should play as participants in the healthcare conversation.” The IMS Health report revealed that pharmaceutical companies and other health care providers are actively expanding their role in social media channels. Nearly half of the top 50 pharmaceutical manufacturers surveyed are using social media to engage patients on healthcare topics. Younger patients under the age of 39 were more likely to research illnesses and drug treatments on Wikipedia before they started their course of treatment. Older patients above the age of 54 were more likely to search Wikipedia for health care information after they had received professional medical attention. [...]

The Top Source of Online Medical Info for Doctors, Patients is…
Physicians News Digest, 29 January 2014 link

Q: What is the #1 online source of medical information for patients and health care professionals? Epocrates? Mayo Clinic? Facebook? No, no, and, thankfully, no (although Facebook is #4 in the U.K.).

A: The #1 source is Wikipedia.

Wikipedia bills itself as a “free encyclopedia” — good so far, as encyclopedias traditionally have been an accurate source of information — that “anyone can edit” — uh oh….what was that last part? ”Anyone?” Therein lies the (potential) problem.

The IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics recently released a report called Engaging Patients Through Social Media, which examined the impact of technology — including the Internet, social media, smartphones, iPads, etc. — on the delivery of healthcare information to patients and providers. Patients often begin their search on Google, but they find Wikipedia articles have top placement and consider those articles to be credible. While younger patients research information prior to treatment, older patients (50+) often begin treatment first and then go online for medical advice. Regardless of the order, IMS found that “Wikipedia is used throughout the entire patient journey, not just at the point of treatment initiation or change in therapy.” The authors reviewed 50 major disease-specific Wikipedia articles and found a strong correlation between page views and medicine use, suggesting a high level of confidence in the information presented on those pages.

But the question remains: How can Wikipedia ensure the accuracy of such sensitive and vital information? Even the authors of the IMS study said ”there is yet to be established a broad approach to funneling the vast resources of healthcare institutions, the pharmaceutical industry, regulators and patient groups into the information that is being used by millions of patients.”

Enter Dr. Amin Azzam, a health sciences associate clinical professor at the University of California, San Francisco School of Medicine. Last year, Dr. Azzam launched the first course to give credit at a U.S. medical school for editing medical content on Wikipedia. “We’re recognizing the impact Wikipedia can have to educate patients and health care providers across the globe, and want users to receive the most accurate publicly available, sound medical information possible,” said Azzam. [...] Prior to the launch of the program, Dr. Azzam told the New York Times that physicians “as a profession have our corpus of knowledge, and we owe it as a profession to educate the lay public.”

[Mancunium]

Doctors Love Wikipedia: Over 50% Of Physicians Get Healthcare Information Online
Design & Trend, 30 January 2014 link

Your life is now in the hands of the internet; a new report just revealed that the majority of American doctors treat their patients with medical information they get from Wikipedia. The report, which was published by the IMS Institute of Medicine, claimed that Wikipedia is the "single leading source of medical information for patients and healthcare professionals."

Over 50% of doctors admit that they've consulted Wikipedia in the last year. Wikipedia's healthcare articles were were accessed "on average, 1.9 million times during the past year. Rarer diseases, which often have fewer available information sources and are less understood by patients and clinicians, show a higher frequency of visits than many more common diseases," the report said. The IMS Institute keeps tabs on "100,000 suppliers and 45 billion healthcare transactions each year," which is what they based their findings on.

The study's findings are somewhat disconcerting considering that anything on any of Wikipedia's 30 million articles can be changed at any time by anybody. It is theorized, however, that more complex topics summon more knowledgeable writers and contributors, although that is obviously impossible to prove. [...]

[Mancunium]

Medical Students Are Fixing Wikipedia Entries
Wikipedia is still the leading source of information for patients and providers.
Which is a problem, since Wikipedia entries have mistakes.
Smithsonian, 30 January 2014 link

We’ve all been there: something hurts and your first instinct is to google it. Suddenly, you’re half-convinced you have cancer. Kelly Oxford, author and screenwriter, once joked that “Web MD is like a Choose Your Own Adventure book where the ending is always cancer.” And while we all know that googling things like “pain in side” is not the best way to evaluation your health issues, Wikipedia is still the leading source of information for patients and providers. Which is a problem, since many Wikipedia entries have mistakes. [...]

The five students in [Dr Amin] Azzam’s class spent a whole month trawling and correcting Wikipedia entries on medical topics. Unlike some fields, like computer science physics, where entries tend to be relatively accurate and updated often by those in the know, medical professionals have long stayed away from Wikipedia, Azzam says. Which makes it all the more likely that the information patients are reaching for is out of date at best, and flat out wrong at worst. Which in turn makes you more likely to be 50 percent certain you have cancer. Okay, maybe 60 percent.

User:Whatamidoing and User:Jmh649 assure you that all your medical needs can be met by Wikipedia.

[Mancunium]

What is the whole wide world saying about WikiProject Medicine today? Here's a sample.

Wikipedia Emerges as Leading Global Resource for Healthcare Information: Report
Top News Arab Emirates, 31 January 2014 link

Wikipedia, launched in 2001, has emerged as the most trusted source of information. A report published by the IMS Institute of Medicine reveals that it has turned out to be the most visited site for healthcare. An online and social media engagement study by IMS Health revealed that both patients and doctors consult the site for gaining more insight regarding some diseases. [...] When a person is diagnosed with some disease, the first step followed by the patient is to use Wikipedia to know more about his condition and his options. IMS found that the top 100 health-related articles on Wikipedia are explored nearly 1.9 million times in the period of one year. [...] Since, content of the site is created by users and can provide wrong info in some of the cases, the moderators and community put their best efforts in observing and removing the incorrect or misleading information from the site. The Executive Director of IMS, Murray Aitken, said Wikipedia and other online social communities are emerging out as the major sources of medical information for patients. So, there is an urgent need to maintain relevant and accurate data on such sites.

Wikipedia: leading source of medical info for physicians and patients
Voice of Russia, 31 January 2014 link

A study, conducted by the IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics showed that nearly 50% of all physicians had consulted the popular website on health care topics. Rare or less common health conditions are among the most viewed by the English-speaking community. [...] The study also showed that big pharmaceutical companies often use social media, especially the Internet, to attract people's attention to healthcare topics. In view of the data, there is really a need for relevant information on health care topics, taking into consideration the fact that all the information on Wikipedia can be easily edited by anyone.

Doctor Wikipedia is top medical resource for patients and doctors
CNET Australia, 31 January 2014 link

[...] The top 100 health articles on Wikipedia were viewed an average of 1.9 million times in the 12-month period IMS Health analysed, with tuberculosis topping the list at 4.2 million visits. This frequency is attributed to the fact that Wikipedia has rapidly become a highly trusted source of information since its launch in 2001, with results frequently appearing at the top of Google search results. Although Wikipedia content is created by users, which can lead to inaccurate information at times, the community is usually pretty good at monitoring and removing spurious claims. The report also found a strong correlation between accessing information on the internet and seeking specific treatments mentioned on the pages therein. The report found that, when beginning treatment or changing prescriptions, patients who had sought information online requested specific treatments. It also found that younger patients were more likely to do so. For older patients, the pages were most likely to be accessed after treatment had already started, a trend that could be partially attributed to family members seeking information about their loved ones' conditions.

[Mancunium]

Doctors Shouldn't Consult Wikipedia
by Michael Reagan
Newsmax, 30 January 2014 link

Most of us have been in this situation: You visit the doctor’s office. Something is wrong but no one is quite sure what it is. Your wife is tired of you moping around the house and complaining. This is why you’re now sitting in your BVDs hoping the doctor can figure out what’s wrong and make it go away. The doctor asks a few questions, checks his watch, and says he’ll be right back. Up until recently I was sure my doctor was calling the National Institute of Health, online with the Mayo Clinic or sending a quick text to Johns Hopkins to get to the bottom of this Reagan’s problem. Now I know there’s a good chance he was checking Wikipedia.

Reporter Benjamin Fearnow writes “Wikipedia is the single leading source of healthcare information for both providers and patients, with 50 percent of physicians reporting that they’ve consulted the community-edited, online encyclopedia for information on health conditions.” Even worse, according to statistics from IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics, “Serious illnesses, especially less common ones, are among the most frequently searched topics by English-language users.” Frankly, I don’t want the family veterinarian checking with Wikipedia first, much less a people doctor.

I certainly don’t mind if an herbalist, aesthetician, or Wiccan checks their diagnosis with Wikipedia — just like I don’t object to their buying supplies at Whole Foods — but when the MDs are getting their second opinions from a source where information is posted by writers who “have no credential checks” I begin to feel like someone just told me if I like my health insurance policy I can keep it. And the worst part is I can’t think of a tactful way to ask the doctor where he got the information when he comes back with an answer. Somehow casually remarking, “Say didn’t I read that on Wikipedia?” after learning you have rickets is probably going to do more harm than good.

I think the only solution is to fight fire with fire. The next time I feel like it’s time for a visit to the doctor, I’m going to consult Wikipedia before I enter the office. Then during the consultation I will admit that I’ve thoroughly researched my symptoms on Wikipedia and I’ve either found a diagnosis and want a second opinion or I’ll tell him that Wiki was stumped and I hope he can find another resource with better information. Since doctors would rather have lunch with Kathleen Sebelius than admit a patient knows what he’s talking about, I’m reasonably sure he’ll be consulting a resource other than Wikipedia for this particular diagnosis.

Michael Reagan is the son of President Ronald Reagan. He is president of The Reagan Legacy Foundation and chairman of the League of American Voters.

The Wikipedia article on Michael_Reagan (T-H-L) is a hatchet job.

[Mancunium]

I hope WikiProject Medicine is collecting all these great reviews, and is starting to understand how it's effecting people's lives.

Social media and chronic disease: 5 lingering challenges to widespread use
MedCity News, 30 January 2014 link

Message boards, blogs and social networks could empower more people to change their unhealthy behaviors and better manage chronic conditions like diabetes and obesity if they overcome a few key barriers, a new report claims. “Social support can augment information to encourage self-reflection, strengthen accountability to achieve goals and ameliorate adverse psychosocial health effects of living with a chronic condition,” the eHealth Initiative writes in a new social media report, funded by the California HealthCare Foundation. [...] The report outlines five specific challenges keeping social media from its full potential in preventing and managing chronic diseases:

*Because social content is often user-generated, its quality, validity and authenticity can be questionable. Efforts to mine social data to produce public health information, then, can lead to inaccurate conclusions. The report calls for professionals to “be better trained with multi-disciplinary skills to bridge the gap between data science and healthcare.”

*Because it’s still relatively new, the models and metrics for social media in healthcare are limited. “Once people reach their goals – for example, losing a certain amount of weight – it can be difficult to achieve sustainable results without a long-term game plan and support community in place,” says Mike Panas, founder of Healthwise Champions, in the report. “Unfortunately, a lot of tools with social components are not built with a multi-faceted vision in mind, and only target individual use for specific purposes on a short-term basis.”

*A digital divide still remains among elderly and minority populations, although smartphone usage is growing. As the divide closes, a new challenge emerges: Misinformation can be spread quickly and easily. “Without appropriate eHealth literacy regarding issues of the veracity and reliability of information found online, social media may encourage users to diagnose and medicate themselves without seeking professional medical input,” the report says.

*Finding a balance between transparency and anonymity is a challenge, as it’s becoming increasingly difficult to navigate privacy and trust online. “What we need to do […] is manage expectations and increase education and transparency about privacy – or lack thereof – on social networks,” said Alice Leiter, policy counsel at Center for Democracy and Technology’s Health Privacy Project, in the report.

*Some healthcare organizations have avoided social media use because of privacy and HIPAA compliance concerns, especially in patient-provider communications. “Because digitized healthcare information is increasingly being used by entities that fall beyond the traditional jurisdiction of HIPAA,” the authors write, “it will behoove newcomers to healthcare from the tech community to identify practical solutions that mitigate potential threats and provide safeguards for dynamic control of information and confidentiality.”

To put together its report, eHealth Initiative attended relevant conferences, read peer-reviewed publications and interviewed 29 industry thought leaders.

A Report on the Use of Social Media to Prevent Behavioral Risk Factors Associated with Chronic Disease
eHealth Initiative link


"I want a new drug. One that won't make me sick."

[Poetlister]

I hope WikiProject Medicine is collecting all these great reviews, and is starting to understand how it's effecting people's lives.

I doubt that IRL effects are within the scope of the project. Wikipedians don't work that way.

[eppur si muove]

The advocates of evidence-based medicine emphasise that it isn't just a matter of deciding "the patient in front of me has signs or symptoms a to e, therefore they probably have disease X and we should treat them with medicine M. Instead they should look at factors regarding the patient (e.g.they're a woman and menopausal, a 6-year old boy...) and then select the treatment that the evidence says is appropriate to that type of person. I can't see Wikipedia ever going that far.

[Poetlister]

You know the reaction you'd get if you said that on Wikipedia - SOFIXIT.

[EricBarbour]

Med school students assigned to improve most-used medical Wikipedia entry
Boing Boing, 1 February 2014 (written by forthright Wikipedia fan, and COI abuser, Cory Doctorow)

Note some of the comments posted in the discussion section:

Wikipedia is a lost cause. A small group of people controls all content there. They've been around for years and they patrol pages against any changes they don't like. It only really takes two people to object to your change to keep it out, and since they've already driven away anyone who disagrees, most pages have not changed significantly for years, even when there are obvious errors.

These medical entries the prof is talking about are usually several years old. Are these students the first people to see they need improvement?

Immediately attacked by a troll called "Funruly".

Regardless of what you think of the editorial quality of wikipedia and the infighting that goes on there, two facts remain.

1- it's the most frequently used source of medical information for PATIENTS and DOCTORS
2- Dr. Azzam, with 5 medical students taking an elective, is trying to improve that info.

Now, even if each of those students only reviews and edits 1 wiki page a piece (diabetes, cardiovascular health, cancer, reproductive health, obesity), they will improve the health education of tens of thousands of people, if not hundreds of thousands.

That's Public Heath advocacy that scales. Your concerns about the editorial process at wiki is a footnote, not the story.

[Mancunium]

An expert in anxiety disorders, dependency – Hiller named president of psychology organization
Chestnut Hill Local, 30 January 2014 link

Lynn H. Collins, associate professor of psychology at La Salle University, was recently elected president of the Society for the Psychology of Women (SPW), one of the largest divisions of American Psychological Association (APA). She said the application of technology to psychology will be a focus of her presidency. A Chestnut Hill resident since 1998, Collins said she plans to build upon existing public information resources about women and girls, such as Wikipedia.

“I think Wikipedia is under-utilized as a tool for disseminating information,” she said. “When I’ve talked with people, including academics, they admit that they use it all the time for quick answers, though they don’t appreciate students plagiarizing it. Academics like the fact that they can easily check the sources of the information presented by clicking on the links that follow the statements within Wikipedia articles. Although there are still some weak pages, there are many pages that are closely monitored by the leading experts in their fields.”

Collins said her current scholarship explores the application of technology to clinical psychology, including listserv use, online therapy, and the use of virtual reality devices in treatment. She was instrumental in the development of SPW’s original website. Currently, SPW has several pages within the APA Website, a Facebook page, a Twitter account, three listservs, and a new stand-alone continuing education website, which Collins plans to develop. [...]

Society for the Psychology of Women link

[EricBarbour]

An expert in anxiety disorders, dependency – Hiller named president of psychology organization
Chestnut Hill Local, 30 January 2014 link

"there are many pages that are closely monitored by the leading experts in their fields.”

{{citation needed}}

[The Joy]

An expert in anxiety disorders, dependency – Hiller named president of psychology organization
Chestnut Hill Local, 30 January 2014 link

Lynn H. Collins, associate professor of psychology at La Salle University, was recently elected president of the Society for the Psychology of Women (SPW), one of the largest divisions of American Psychological Association (APA). She said the application of technology to psychology will be a focus of her presidency. A Chestnut Hill resident since 1998, Collins said she plans to build upon existing public information resources about women and girls, such as Wikipedia.

“I think Wikipedia is under-utilized as a tool for disseminating information,” she said. “When I’ve talked with people, including academics, they admit that they use it all the time for quick answers, though they don’t appreciate students plagiarizing it. Academics like the fact that they can easily check the sources of the information presented by clicking on the links that follow the statements within Wikipedia articles. Although there are still some weak pages, there are many pages that are closely monitored by the leading experts in their fields.”

Collins said her current scholarship explores the application of technology to clinical psychology, including listserv use, online therapy, and the use of virtual reality devices in treatment. She was instrumental in the development of SPW’s original website. Currently, SPW has several pages within the APA Website, a Facebook page, a Twitter account, three listservs, and a new stand-alone continuing education website, which Collins plans to develop. [...]

Society for the Psychology of Women link

IANAMD (I am not a medical doctor), but as someone with anxiety issues, the way to defeat anxiety is to confront it. Some may need to have the anxiety gradually introduced to them under a therapist's care, some may need cognitive therapy, some may need medication, all the above, or some of each. It may never go away, yet it can be managed with time and care. Online interactions can take away some of the social anxiety, but it restricts and discourages human contact creating more problems as you still worry about getting into a social situation even in the sanctity of your dwelling. That can lead to agoraphobia and other phobias associated with your anxiety. I can handle most personal situations now with anti-anxiety medication, but it still takes more energy for me to deal with social settings than most people.

I prefer PubMed or WebMD for my online medical questions, though all "Internet medicine" can leave you more anxious than relieved. Do you have a headache? Well, Dr. Google says you may have a simple headache, a stroke, high stress, or a brain parasite! Even the best online medical resources encourage going to your doctor. Wikipedia doesn't do that because WP:NOTCENSORED!

[Mancunium]

Wikipedia Is Top Source for Medical Information
ABC News, 3 February 2014 link

(NEW YORK) -- Where do people go most often on the Internet when they're looking for medical information? The answer is Wikipedia, the modern-day encyclopedia. [...] Interestingly, IMS Health found that younger people are more prone to consult Wikipedia health information prior to seeking treatment, which is the opposite of those 50 and older, the demographic that uses health care services more than any other age group.

If all those cranky old folks consulted Wikipedia instead of a physician, we tech-savvy young people wouldn't have to wait so long for our Inheritance (T-H-L).

[Mancunium]

Why Is the CDC Trying to Block an Accurate Lyme Disease Test?
Truth-out, 2 February 2014 link

A recent article in Medscape is titled New Lyme Culture Test Failed CDC Analysis. At first I took the article and paper at face value, and tried to dig into the errors of a chronic-Lyme disease researcher. The only errors I could discover were by the CDC, and they seem blatant. In the same article about the CDC paper was the explanation that they did not want tests that might lead to unnecessary antibiotic treatment. [...] I wrote here last week that I was getting blocked on Wikipedia from providing details about the Lyme Wars because Wikipedia only wanted to present the mainstream view. [...] The two camps in the war have only one scientific disagreement that I can detect. The mainstream medicine’s view is that the Lyme bacteria is non-persistent if treated with a few weeks of antibiotics, and even if untreated, the infection should be considered cleared when the immune system is no longer fighting the bacteria. People can still be sick later, but this sickness is likely due an auto-immune reaction. The minority position is that the bacteria hides and burrows, changes forms and builds biofilm colonies that both make the bacteria resistant to antibiotics, but also invisible to the immune system. [...] With 2 universities already testing the culture, and the ability to independently test so simple, why is the CDC wading into research wars? [...]

And why are the unqualified incompetent arrogant busybodies of WikiProject Medicine wading into a scientific disagreement about something as terrible as Lyme_disease (T-H-L)?

[Mancunium]

Translators without Borders expands in Africa through Wikimedia
HumanIPO, 4 February 2014 link

Translators without Borders (TwB) has expanded its humanitarian-related programmes in Africa through a Wikimedia project that focuses on translating medical articles into local languages. [...] The organisation, along with Wikimedia Canada and WikiProject Medicine launched the Wikimedia 100X100 project, focused on medical information. “The 100×100 Project focuses on Wikipedia medical and health care articles considered fundamental because of their content and quality. The aim is to translate the 100 articles most viewed into simpler English and then into 100 other languages. To date, nearly three million words have been delivered, which includes several African languages – in particular Swahili, which has more than 65 million speakers as the lingua franca of East Africa,” TwB said. [...]

[Mancunium]

Wikipedia Is Top Health Site for Doctors, Too: IMS Report
Medscape, 5 February 2014 link

Wikipedia is the single leading source of healthcare information for both patients and physicians, according to a new report from the IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics. [...] Among the report's recommendations to HCPs, "Effective engagement by HCPs with patients occurs where they feel most comfortable, including in social media forums. The approach taken by HCPs to social media must therefore be developed in order for HCPs to fulfil their professional mission." That's essentially what the American College of Physicians (ACP) did in a policy statement issued in April 2013 in conjunction with the Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB), offering detailed guidelines for physicians on appropriate use of social media, ACP president-elect David A. Fleming, MD, told Medscape Medical News.

"To me, [the IMS recommendation] is sort of a soft mandate, where professional organizations and groups are expected to approach social media in a professional way to meet their professional mission…. It really is up to us to police ourselves and to inform ourselves about what appropriate behavior is," Dr. Fleming said. [...] Dr. Fleming told Medscape Medical News that he does use Wikipedia, but not as a primary source of medical information. He checks it for historical or social information, and also sometimes uses references from medical entries. He also uses Google and Google Scholar, as well as physician-targeted sources such as UpToDate, Epocrates, and ACP Smart Medicine. "You get multiple sources when you do a search. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. Any information we get, whether Wikipedia or any healthcare sites or blogs, have to be put in the context of a balanced view." Dr. Fleming added, "Before we share any information with our patients, we need to feel comfortable that the source is accurate and the information is evidence-based, regardless of where it comes from." [...]

An analysis of pages for Wikipedia articles on 5 health conditions — diabetes, multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, breast cancer, and prostate cancer — showed that the content or meaning of the information in the articles had been changed an average of 16 to 46 times per month since they had been created. The last 100 changes for the 5 articles — most of them major changes — had occurred in the last 5 to 12 months. Indeed, another of the report's recommendations was: "HCPs have a strong vested interest in supporting the updating and maintenance of medical information utilized by patients online, including Wikipedia." Dr. Fleming agrees. "I think physicians have always had a responsibility to society to ensure accuracy and cogency of information that goes out to the public. That includes Wikipedia, but that's just one part. We need to be participatory."

Dr. Fleming takes issue with the wording of a third IMS call to action for HCPs: "The rise of the empowered patient may threaten the previous stature of the physician as the sole decision maker, but empowered patients make the decisions which they feel are right for them. This has important implications for how HCPs view such patients and engage with them." He said, "I think it's quite the opposite. The good physician is going to attempt to empower their patients by giving them information. That's what informed consent is all about. That's what patient-centered, shared decision-making is about." For sure, the Internet and social media have made discussions with patients more "complex and challenging because so much of the information is wrong or confusing and is taken out of context…and we have to correct the mistakes. But on the other hand, it's encouraging discussion with the patient and families." [...] That's the direction medicine has been going, according to Dr. Fleming, "Over the last 40-50 years, the rise of autonomy has put the patient more central to the kinds of communication that occurs. It's not a one-sided discussion… It's a discussion of what options we need to consider…. All of the professional organizations are embracing the notion of communicating effectively."

Commenting is limited to medical professionals

Online Medical Professionalism: Patient and Public Relationships: Policy Statement From the American College of Physicians and the Federation of State Medical Boards
Annals of Internal Medicine, 16 April 2013 link

Abstract
User-created content and communications on Web-based applications, such as networking sites, media sharing sites, or blog platforms, have dramatically increased in popularity over the past several years, but there has been little policy or guidance on the best practices to inform standards for the professional conduct of physicians in the digital environment. Areas of specific concern include the use of such media for nonclinical purposes, implications for confidentiality, the use of social media in patient education, and how all of this affects the public's trust in physicians as patient–physician interactions extend into the digital environment. Opportunities afforded by online applications represent a new frontier in medicine as physicians and patients become more connected. This position paper from the American College of Physicians and the Federation of State Medical Boards examines and provides recommendations about the influence of social media on the patient–physician relationship, the role of these media in public perception of physician behaviors, and strategies for physician–physician communication that preserve confidentiality while best using these technologies.

[Zoloft]

[...

Cecil Rhodes (T-H-L)
... of whom Mark Twain once remarked:

I admire him, I frankly confess it; and when his time comes I shall buy a piece of the rope for a keepsake.

[Mancunium]

Dr. Wikipedia: The 'Double-Edged Sword' Of Crowd-Sourced Medicine
NPR, 8 February 2014 link

Wikipedia has become a go-to source for definitions, celebrity facts, and now, medical information. A published in January names Wikipedia as the "single leading source" of health care information for both patients and health care professionals. Unfortunately, some of that information is wrong.

"I think that's the double-edged sword of Wikipedia," Dr. Amin Azzam tells NPR's Arun Rath. "Because anyone can edit, we don't necessarily know the expertise of the people doing the editing. One the other hand, the reason it's so popular is because everyone can contribute." Azzam is a professor of psychiatry at the University of California, San Francisco. He teaches a course that encourages fourth-year medical students to use their knowledge to improve Wikipedia, one article at a time. The syllabus is, of course, posted on Wikipedia. Students choose one article from the top 100 most-read medical articles on the site and work on it throughout the course. For example, one of his students updated information about how long an HIV test can present a false negative result.

Azzam says there's a lot of room for improving the quality of Wikipedia in the medical domain because doctors are late-comers to the resource. "In the health care community, we're used to learning from wisened professors above us," says Azzam. "My generation absolutely pooh-poohed Wikipedia, and now I'm finding that all my med students, they use that first because it's written in a way that they understand as they are learning to become doctors." Azzam says it was fun watching the students work and realize that editing the articles is harder than they expected. [...]

The article on HIV test results is one of those which spread deadly misinformation (Window_period (T-H-L)), and is mentioned in this thread supra. The radio interview with Dr Azzam is embedded.

[The Joy]

List of causes of shortness of breath (T-H-L)

Well, that narrows down the diagnosis.

[Mancunium]

List of causes of shortness of breath (T-H-L)

Well, that narrows down the diagnosis.

They left out at least one possible diagnosis.

Loss of Breath
by Edgar Allan Poe link

[...] when, to my extreme horror and astonishment, I discovered that I had lost my breath. The phrases “I am out of breath,” “I have lost my breath,” &c., are often enough repeated in common conversation; but it had never occurred to me that the terrible accident of which I speak could bona fide and actually happen! Imagine — that is if you have a fanciful turn — imagine, I say, my wonder — my consternation — my despair! [...] Behold me then safely ensconced in my private boudoir, a fearful instance of the ill consequences attending upon irascibility — alive, with the qualifications of the dead — dead, with the propensities of the living — an anomaly on the face of the earth — being very calm, yet breathless. Yes! breathless. I am serious in asserting that my breath was entirely gone. I could not have stirred with it a feather if my life had been at issue, or sullied even the delicacy of a mirror. [...]

[Mancunium]

Students must learn how to swim in a sea of information
by Dr Jonathan White
Maclean's, 18 January 2014 link

I recently discovered an old photograph of myself as a first-year medical student. I’m sitting at a dining-room table, surrounded by a stack of textbooks, notes and pens and, to one side, there is a human skull. It’s before digital cameras, so there’s no date stamp on it, but I reckon it was taken in 1987 or 1988. Comparing me to my students today, it’s interesting to note what’s missing from the picture. There’s no laptop open on the table and no wireless connection to the Internet. [...] I'm just studying, using pen and paper to try to drive facts into my brain. I look pretty serious about it, too, and perhaps a little hopeful. I have no idea how much the landscape of teaching and learning will change during my career.

The impact of new technology in this time has been profound and wide-reaching. Today’s students have access to all the information they could possibly need, at any time. Wikipedia has a page on pretty much anything you can imagine [...] Students can collaborate and share materials in a way that I never dreamed of. They can quickly find the information they need, and sometimes use that to challenge what their teachers tell them. [...] The landscape of Wikipedia, MOOCs (massive open online courses) and crowd-sourcing will be confusing to some [...] We’ll follow where our students lead us, and discover new sources of creativity in our work. [...]

Dr Jonathan White

Dr. Jonathan White is a cancer surgeon, a professor, a ukulele player and a multimedia editor who spends Sundays teaching himself how to make podcasts and videos for the world’s medical students.

How very reassuring.

[Mancunium]

Wikipedia Is a Massively Popular (Yet Untested) Doctor
Nearly three-fourths of Internet users look up health information online. Wikipedia wants to make sure they're not misled
National Journal, 20 February 2014 link

Wikipedia says that fewer than 1 percent of its medical articles have been peer-reviewed, but that doesn't stop the pages from grabbing more than 180 million views per month. Now the website is working to change that. Enter the WikiProject Med Foundation—a nonprofit group working to develop free medical content on Wikipedia—and WikiProject Medicine, a discussion forum for people interested in health and science. Wikipedia is curated on a volunteer-only basis and has a tiny budget relative to its size, so the website won't be hiring doctors and other medical experts to rewrite its articles. [...]

Wikipedia editor James Heilman, an emergency doctor who also serves as president of the WikiProject Med Foundation, estimates there are 50-100 active medical-related page editors each month, roughly half of whom have a professional background in medicine. Some 1,000-2,000 edits are made to medical content each day. [...] "The way Wikipedia works," Heilman wrote in an email, "is that all content is to stand entirely on the references that are listed. If the best quality sources are used to write Wikipedia there's a good chance that Wikipedia will contain the best quality information."

Which are the 1% of medical articles that have been "peer-reviewed"? This is an impossibility, and is a lie told to you by your email correspondent. I haven't taken the time, recently, to visit WikiProject Medicine's "discussion forum", or to learn what new progress has been made in the WikiProject Med Foundation's money-begging scheme (money which, of course, will not be used for "hiring doctors and other medical experts"); and I haven't had a look, lately, at the other activities of Dr Heilman, who is running all this worldwide quackery from his walk-in clinic in Cranbrook (as if that backwoods settlement doesn't have enough problems already link).

The fact is, Heilman and all his works make me sick. They induce nausea, of both the non-specific symptomatic and the Sartrean existentialist variety.

[EricBarbour]

Wikipedia Is a Massively Popular (Yet Untested) Doctor
Nearly three-fourths of Internet users look up health information online. Wikipedia wants to make sure they're not misled
National Journal, 20 February 2014 link

Wikipedia says that fewer than 1 percent of its medical articles have been peer-reviewed, but that doesn't stop the pages from grabbing more than 180 million views per month. Now the website is working to change that. Enter the WikiProject Med Foundation—a nonprofit group working to develop free medical content on Wikipedia—and WikiProject Medicine, a discussion forum for people interested in health and science. Wikipedia is curated on a volunteer-only basis and has a tiny budget relative to its size, so the website won't be hiring doctors and other medical experts to rewrite its articles. [...]

Wikipedia editor James Heilman, an emergency doctor who also serves as president of the WikiProject Med Foundation, estimates there are 50-100 active medical-related page editors each month, roughly half of whom have a professional background in medicine. Some 1,000-2,000 edits are made to medical content each day. [...] "The way Wikipedia works," Heilman wrote in an email, "is that all content is to stand entirely on the references that are listed. If the best quality sources are used to write Wikipedia there's a good chance that Wikipedia will contain the best quality information."

Which are the 1% of medical articles that have been "peer-reviewed"? This is an impossibility, and is a lie told to you by your email correspondent.

Don't tell us, tell the journalist who wrote that. I'll email her with some actual facts (assuming I can get her attention).

[Mancunium]

Don't tell us, tell the journalist who wrote that. I'll email her with some actual facts (assuming I can get her attention).

Thank you. I'm not just telling y'all. I like to think I'm telling the world, and the WikiProject Med people have certainly been reacting to the posts in this thread. It made paid-editor-for-pharmaceutical-companies Dr Bertalan Meskó scurry to clean up his stink on the internet, and even made Dr James Heilman take down his claim to be Professor of Medicine at the University of Saskatchewan.

The Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/RFC_on_medical_disclaimer (T-H-L) originated here. The phrase "Doctor Wikipedia" was introduced as the title of this thread on 27 September 2013, and has since become journalistic shorthand for the whole disgraceful life-threatening shambles, e.g. The #1 doctor in the world is Dr. Wikipedia (Quartz, 21 January 2014) and Dr. Wikipedia: The 'Double-Edged Sword' Of Crowd-Sourced Medicine (National Public Radio, 10 February 2014). As far as I know, Wikipediocracy is their only dedicated critic.

[Anthonyhcole]

I hope WikiProject Medicine is collecting all these great reviews, and is starting to understand how it's effecting people's lives.

We badly need a succinct summary of the evidence so far of who's relying on Wikipedia medical content, and another of the evidence so far of Wikipedia's reliability (generally and health information specifically). Do you feel like writing that up? You've got a better grasp of that than most, I think.

[Poetlister]

Which are the 1% of medical articles that have been "peer-reviewed"? This is an impossibility, and is a lie told to you by your email correspondent.

If an article has been read and approved or corrected by a verifiable medical doctor, it has been peer reviewed. Of course, there is always the possibility that it wil be substantially altered after this review.

[EricBarbour]

Don't tell us, tell the journalist who wrote that. I'll email her with some actual facts (assuming I can get her attention).

Thank you. I'm not just telling y'all. I like to think I'm telling the world, and the WikiProject Med people have certainly been reacting to the posts in this thread.

Her email is critger@nationaljournal.com if anyone wants to contact her with a more complete story.

[Anthonyhcole]

This is what I've seen in the nominally peer-reviewed literature on the reliability of Wikipedia's medical content:
*2008 "'Is my child developing normally?': a critical review of web-based resources for parents." link
*2008 "Accuracy and completeness of drug information in Wikipedia." link
*2008 "Scope, Completeness, and Accuracy of Drug Information in Wikipedia" link
*2008 "Putting Wikipedia to the Test: A Case Study" link
*2010 "Wikipedia and osteosarcoma: a trustworthy patients' information?" link
*2010 "Accuracy of cancer information on the Internet: A comparison of a Wiki with a professionally maintained database." link
*2011 "Reliability of Wikipedia as a medication information source for pharmacy students" link
*2011 "Wikipedia as an evidence source for nursing and healthcare students." link
*2011 "Accuracy and completeness of drug information in Wikipedia: an assessment." link
*2011 "Patient-Oriented Cancer Information on the Internet: A Comparison of Wikipedia and a Professionally Maintained Database" link
*2011 "Quality of information sources about mental disorders: a comparison of Wikipedia with centrally controlled web and printed sources." link
*2012 "Letter to the editor: quality of mental health information on Wikipedia." link
*2012 "How good is Google? The quality of otolaryngology information on the internet." link
*2012 "Quality of Internet information in pediatric otolaryngology: a comparison of three most referenced websites." link
*2013 "An evaluation of Wikipedia as a resource for patient education in nephrology." link
*2014 "Evaluation of gastroenterology and hepatology articles on Wikipedia: are they suitable as learning resources for medical students?" link

[EricBarbour]

This is what I've seen in the nominally peer-reviewed literature on the reliability of Wikipedia's medical content:
*2008 "'Is my child developing normally?': a critical review of web-based resources for parents." link
*2008 "Accuracy and completeness of drug information in Wikipedia." link
*2008 "Scope, Completeness, and Accuracy of Drug Information in Wikipedia" link
*2008 "Putting Wikipedia to the Test: A Case Study" link
*2010 "Wikipedia and osteosarcoma: a trustworthy patients' information?" link
*2010 "Accuracy of cancer information on the Internet: A comparison of a Wiki with a professionally maintained database." link
*2011 "Reliability of Wikipedia as a medication information source for pharmacy students" link
*2011 "Wikipedia as an evidence source for nursing and healthcare students." link
*2011 "Accuracy and completeness of drug information in Wikipedia: an assessment." link
*2011 "Patient-Oriented Cancer Information on the Internet: A Comparison of Wikipedia and a Professionally Maintained Database" link
*2011 "Quality of information sources about mental disorders: a comparison of Wikipedia with centrally controlled web and printed sources." link
*2012 "Letter to the editor: quality of mental health information on Wikipedia." link
*2012 "How good is Google? The quality of otolaryngology information on the internet." link
*2012 "Quality of Internet information in pediatric otolaryngology: a comparison of three most referenced websites." link
*2013 "An evaluation of Wikipedia as a resource for patient education in nephrology." link
*2014 "Evaluation of gastroenterology and hepatology articles on Wikipedia: are they suitable as learning resources for medical students?" link

That's a good list. You ought to make a blog post out of it.

[Casliber]

This one looked at bipolar disorder:

http://anp.sagepub.com/content/44/3/291.2.extract

[Anthonyhcole]

Thanks Cas. Here's a few more from PubMed. I'll integrate them when it's not 2 in the morning.

*2014 "Quality of patient health information on the Internet: reviewing a complex and evolving landscape." link
*2013 "Assessment and revision of clinical pharmacy practice internet web sites." link
*2013 "Wikis and collaborative writing applications in health care: a scoping review." link
*2013 "Generic medicines: an evaluation of the accuracy and accessibility of information available on the Internet." link
*2013 "Informal education of medical doctors on the Internet." link
*2013 "Evaluating the Effectiveness of a Wiki Internet Site for Medical Topics" link
*2012 "Wikipedia: encyclopaedia cardiologica." link
*2012 "Orthognathic surgery: is patient information on the Internet valid?" link
*2011 "Wikipedia: A good address for neuroradiologists?" link
*2011 "Should doctors spurn Wikipedia?" link
*2011 "Wikipedia as an evidence source for nursing and healthcare students. link
*2010 "Using wikis as an online health information resource." link
*2010 "An evaluation of medical knowledge contained in Wikipedia and its use in the LOINC database." link
*2010 "Pathology education, Wikipedia and the Net generation." link
*2009 "[Medications in Wikipedia. Comparison of reliability]. [Article in French] link
*2009 "Is Wikipedia unsuitable as a clinical information resource for medical students?" link
*2009 "Seeking Health Information Online: Does Wikipedia Matter?" link
*2009 "Not an authority. (Comment on: Wikipedia use. 2009)" link
*2009 "Wikipedia use. (Comment on: Wikipedia comes second. 2009) link
*2008 "Wikipedia comes second" link
*2009 "[Letter on the article "Is medical and health information available from Wikipedia on the Internet evidence based?--a content analysis" published online 2008.06.09]. [Letter in German] link
*2008 "[Does WIKIPEDIA provide evidence-based health care information? A content analysis].
[Article in German]" link
*2008 "A comparison of world wide web resources for identifying medical information." link
*2008 "When searching for the evidence, stop using Wikipedia!" link
*2007 "Proceed with caution: using Wikipedia as a reference." link

[Anthonyhcole]

That's a good list. You ought to make a blog post out of it.

I need to go through this thread and pick out any of Mancunium's citations that haven't made it into the list. I'll think about a blog post. There's a bit to read there. And the same amount again on how general readers, students and medical professionals use Wikipedia medical content. But a summary of what the nominally scholarly literature has to say on those topics might be useful.

[Mancunium]

Doctors’ #1 Source for Healthcare Information: Wikipedia
Fifty percent of physicians look up conditions on the site, and some are editing articles themselves to improve the quality of available information.
The Atlantic, 5 March 2014 link

In spite of all of our teachers' and bosses' warnings that it's not a trustworthy source of information, we all rely on Wikipedia. Not only when we can’t remember the name of that guy from that movie, which is a fairly low-risk use, but also when we find a weird rash or are just feeling a little off and we’re not sure why. One in three Americans have tried to diagnose a medical condition with the help of the Internet, and a new report says doctors are just as drawn to Wikipedia’s flickering flame.

According to the IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics’ “Engaging patients through social media” report, Wikipedia is the top source of healthcare information for both doctors and patients. Fifty percent of physicians use Wikipedia for information, especially for specific conditions. [...] We already knew that more and more people were turning to the Internet in general and Wikipedia specifically for health information, and we could hardly stop them if we tried. “Wikipedia entries often appear highest in the results pages of various search engines and the Being crowd-sourced, the information may well be neutral, but is it accurate? Knowing that doctors, too, are using these resources raises old concerns about the quality of information that comes up when you type your condition into Google. [...]

The IMS report looked at changes to five articles—diabetes, multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, breast cancer and prostate cancer—and found them to be in a state of constant flux. Those articles were changed, on average, between 16 and 46 times a month. But one of the major contributors to those articles was Dr. James Heilman, the founder of Wikiproject Medicine’s Medicine Translation task force. “This task force’s goal is getting 200 medical articles to a good or featured status (only 0.1 percent of articles on Wikipedia have this status), simplifying the English and then translating this content to as many languages as possible,” the report says. “The aim is to improve the quality of the most read medical articles on Wikipedia and ensure that this quality will reach non-English speakers.” [...] “I do feel we have a moral obligation, as members of the profession to be reaching out to the people we intend to serve, where they are—and they are on the Internet,” he told me. And now it seems that not only doctors’ patients are finding medical information online—so are their colleagues.

[Zoloft]

That's a good list. You ought to make a blog post out of it.

I need to go through this thread and pick out any of Mancunium's citations that haven't made it into the list. I'll think about a blog post. There's a bit to read there. And the same amount again on how general readers, students and medical professionals use Wikipedia medical content. But a summary of what the nominally scholarly literature has to say on those topics might be useful.

I encourage you to do this. I feel the subject is important and somewhat alarming.

[Mancunium]

This publication provide a link to The Atlantic's story, "Doctors’ #1 Source for Healthcare Information: Wikipedia".

Doctors' Relying on Wikipedia for Disease Information?
Monthly Prescribing Reference, 5 March 2014 link

The MPR take:

A report from the IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics has found that Wikipedia is the #1 source for physicians and patients on healthcare information, with 50% of doctors using Wikipedia. Doctors often use it for information on specific conditions, however the IMS report notes that disease-related articles are constantly being changed, some even as much as 46 times in one month. A new task force, known as Wikiproject Medicine, will take on the challenge of improving the quality of information found on Wikipedia. Fifty percent of physicians look up conditions on the site, and some are editing articles themselves to improve the quality of available information.

[Mancunium]

The horrible truth is beginning to flow southward.

Wikipedia es la principal fuente de información para médicos y pacientes
El Nacional (Venezuela), 5 March 2014 link

Wikipedia, la principal fuente para médicos y pacientes
El Espectador (Uruguay), 5 March 2014 link

Wikipedia es la principal fuente de información para médicos y pacientes
LT10Digital (Argentina), 5 March 2014 link

[Mancunium]

'Cause For Concern': Wikipedia Is Doctors’ #1 Source For Healthcare Information
Headlines & Global News, 5 March 2014 link

[...] Even though we have constantly been warned by both teachers and bosses to avoid Wikipedia and not trust the source of information, we still rely on the website. According to the Atlantic, one in three Americans have tried to diagnose a medical condition with the help of the Internet, and a new report said doctors are just as drawn to Wikipedia's flickering flame.

According to the IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics' "Engaging patients through social media" report, Wikipedia is the top source of healthcare information for both doctors and patients. Fifty percent of physicians use Wikipedia for information, especially for specific conditions. More than common conditions, more people turn to Wikipedia for rare diseases. Tuberculosis, Crohn's disease, pneumonia, multiple sclerosis, and diabetes are the top five conditions looked up on the website over the past year. Patients tend to use Wikipedia as a "starting point for their online self-education," the report said. It also found a "direct correlation between Wikipedia page visits and prescription volumes." It is a known fact that most people turn to the Internet and Wikipedia specifically to look up health information.

"Wikipedia entries often appear highest in the results pages of various search engines and the public perception of Wikipedia being a legitimate source of information has increased dramatically in recent years," the report reads. "For healthcare in particular, patients are concerned about the validity and neutrality of the information they seek out, and Wikipedia increasingly meets this need, providing supplemental information to that which they receive from clinicians." "Being crowd-sourced, the information may well be neutral, but is it accurate? Knowing that doctors, too, are using these resources raises old concerns about the quality of information that comes up when you type your condition into Google," the Atlantic reported. [...]

The IMS report looked at changes to five articles-diabetes, multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, breast cancer and prostate cancer-and found them to be in a state of constant flux. Those articles were changed, on average, between 16 and 46 times a month. But one of the major contributors to those articles was Dr. James Heilman, the founder of Wikiproject Medicine's Medicine Translation task force, the Atlantic reported. "This task force's goal is getting 200 medical articles to a good or featured status (only 0.1 percent of articles on Wikipedia have this status), simplifying the English and then translating this content to as many languages as possible," the report said. "The aim is to improve the quality of the most read medical articles on Wikipedia and ensure that this quality will reach non-English speakers."

James_Heilman (T-H-L)


More than common conditions, more people turn to Wikipedia for rare diseases. Tuberculosis,
Crohn’s disease, pneumonia, multiple sclerosis, and diabetes are the top five conditions looked
up on the website over the past year.

[Mancunium]

Another link to The Atlantic:

Paging Dr. Wikipedia
MedPage Today, 6 March 2014 link

Some 50% of surveyed physicians said they lean on Wikipedia for help. Good thing Wikiproject Medicine is out to correct flawed entries.

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Citing_Wikipedia_in_health_science_journals (T-H-L)

Hello. A paper was just published which said that a lot of health science journals cite Wikipedia as an authoritative source.

Bould, M. D.; Hladkowicz, E. S.; Pigford, A.-A. E.; Ufholz, L.-A.; Postonogova, T.; Shin, E.; Boet, S. (6 March 2014). "References that anyone can edit: review of Wikipedia citations in peer reviewed health science literature". BMJ 348 (mar05 4): g1585–g1585. doi:10.1136/bmj.g1585.

This article just presents data which indicates that the citation of Wikipedia in health science journals has been happening for a long time and is happening more now. It happens more in lower-impact factor journals but still happens in top impact factor journals. I wrote a response to this article in which I said that the Wikipedia community suggests that actually it would be better for people seeking health information to follow the references which are cited in Wikipedia and reuse those sources after checking them and judging their quality.Rasberry, Lane (6 March 2014). "Citing Wikipedia". BMJ 348 (mar05 4): g1819–g1819. doi:10.1136/bmj.g1819.

I like what I wrote. It would not be my preference to have a role in which I seem to be a representative of the Wikipedia community, but it happens sometimes and I took this as an opportunity for outreach. There are two points on which I would like to comment because I knowingly said things which were not completely aligned with existing Wikipedia policy. I discouraged health science writers from citing Wikipedia articles, when the Wikipedia platform encourages people to cite its articles. Go to any article, and on the left menu there is an option which says, "cite this page". This leads users to a place which helps people cite Wikipedia articles. This is not aligned with most community thought that people should check the references which any article uses and preferably cite those, and of course the citations that tool generates are so lacking in authority that Wikipedia itself forbids they be reused elsewhere on Wikipedia. I think that people here in WikiProject Medicine would especially agree with the idea of checking the cited sources, and lots of other Wikipedians think that, but this is not actually in the policies. I think this is not even discussed much anywhere. I suggested that health information on Wikipedia ought to have citations, when there is no rule on Wikipedia that says citations have to be used at all. English Wikipedia often tells people to use citations. Many Wikipedias in other languages hardly use references. Lots of people on English Wikipedia, especially outside of health science projects on Wikipedia, feel comfortable adding lots of information with no citations. In the guidelines, the concept of WP:Verifiability is just a route to achieving neutral point of view, and not fundamental to Wikipedia otherwise. WikiProject Medicine, I feel, takes a much stronger stance that information should only be added to health science articles if it has a citation, and so far as I know everyone here strongly favors use of citations. There are lots of benefits to allowing information without citations be used on Wikipedia, but it is my opinion that ideally all information on Wikipedia should have a citation, even when it is good to temporarily sometimes have uncited information here. I had limited space in what I could write and I said that Wikipedia should not be cited and that information in Wikipedia should have citations. I know there is more nuance which I was unable to express. I did what I could to get more information out to new health channels. I am sorry also that BMJ was unable to publish my commentary with an open access license. I am also a supporter of WikiProject Open and I made the requests that I could to make my paper accessible to everyone online, but I failed to identify a route by means of which to do this. I thought it was important to at least reach BMJ readers and I even asked their readers to come to this board and talk with us. Right now I do not understand what limits I have in sharing my letter, but at least if anyone on this board wants to read it email me and I will share a copy with you. Thanks everyone. Thoughts? Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:31, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I made the requests that I could to make my paper accessible to everyone online, but I failed to identify a route by means of which to do this. - If you have copyright permission to do so, publish a preprint on arXiv or biorXiv.--cyclopiaspeak! 16:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Cyclopia Thanks for the advice. Let me check in with others and if that is an option for me then I will do it. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:54, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

"Good thing Wikiproject Medicine
is out to correct flawed entries."

[Anthonyhcole]

That's a good list. You ought to make a blog post out of it.

I need to go through this thread and pick out any of Mancunium's citations that haven't made it into the list. I'll think about a blog post. There's a bit to read there. And the same amount again on how general readers, students and medical professionals use Wikipedia medical content. But a summary of what the nominally scholarly literature has to say on those topics might be useful.

I encourage you to do this. I feel the subject is important and somewhat alarming.

Yep. But I have no energy at the moment. I've just been idling my time away torturing admins and pompous farts for the last couple of days. But I'll try to focus on this. I agree. It's important. I'll go score some modafinil.

[Mancunium]

That's a good list. You ought to make a blog post out of it.

I need to go through this thread and pick out any of Mancunium's citations that haven't made it into the list. I'll think about a blog post. There's a bit to read there. And the same amount again on how general readers, students and medical professionals use Wikipedia medical content. But a summary of what the nominally scholarly literature has to say on those topics might be useful.

I encourage you to do this. I feel the subject is important and somewhat alarming.

Yep. But I have no energy at the moment. I've just been idling my time away torturing admins and pompous farts for the last couple of days. But I'll try to focus on this. I agree. It's important. I'll go score some modafinil.

Torturing admins and pompous farts seems like a good way to spend one's limited energy. I had never heard of modafinil before. It looks like this:



You have mentioned your health before; I have limited mobility and chronic pain, and there is a nice little bottle of 50mg codeine tablets in my view as I write this. They are to be used ad lib., and the label promises me many repeats. But I can dispense with them altogether just by working myself into a rage over Wikipedia-- so the encyclopedia does have a definite medical value. This is what my codeine looks like:

[Anthonyhcole]

But I can dispense with them altogether just by working myself into a rage over Wikipedia-- so the encyclopedia does have a definite medical value.

Self-righteous indignation and zeal. Great analgesics. I've got pain and fatigue. Mostly fatigue.

[Mancunium]

But I can dispense with them altogether just by working myself into a rage over Wikipedia-- so the encyclopedia does have a definite medical value.

Self-righteous indignation and zeal. Great analgesics. I've got pain and fatigue. Mostly fatigue.

No indignation is as sincere as self-righteous indignation, and no zeal is as satisfying as irrational fanaticism.

My own fatigue is credited to Polymyositis (T-H-L), and is currently being treated with 10mg of prednisone and 50mg of azathioprine daily. I can't stand either of those drugs. The azathioprine doesn't twirl about, apparently:



But the prednisone does this charming little waltz:

[lilburne]

Normally they do that for the recreational drug molecules.

[Mancunium]

Patients and HCPs turn first to Wikipedia
The online encyclopedia is now the leading source of medical information
PMLiVE, 7 March 2014 link

Wikipedia is growing up and it's time the pharmaceutical industry started paying more attention to the online encyclopedia. It's been on the radar of many in the industry but new urgency is added to the debate by research showing the website is now the single leading source of medical information for patients and healthcare professionals. [...] Murray Aitken, executive director of the IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics, said: “Increasingly, patients are turning to social media as an essential forum for obtaining and sharing information related to their health. This trend only heightens the need for relevant, accurate content that can be accessed and used throughout the patient journey. Healthcare professionals, regulators and pharmaceutical manufacturers all need to overcome their reticence and acknowledge the vital role that they can and should play in contributing to the healthcare conversation.”

Medical information accuracy and Wikipedia

[...] Although the reliability of information on Wikipedia is still often criticised, several studies have found it to have similar standards to many professional - and even peer-reviewed - sources. The best source for this is, of course, Wikipedia itself, whose Reliability of Wikipedia page points to studies on the subject published in Nature, Psychological Medicine and the Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. Nevertheless, there's still more work to be done - as acknowledged by Cancer Research UK's decision early this year to recruit its own 'Wikipedian'. There was another interesting development last month when the Cochrane Collaboration announced a partnership designed to improve the reliability and accessibility of Wikipedia medical information online. The not-for-profit, evidence-based medicine body will work with Wikiproject Medicine, a space within Wikipedia for those interested in the site's medical and health content, to share it expertise and work with Wikipedia editors. Dr James Heilman, from the Wikiproject Medicine Foundation board of directors, said: “Much of Wikipedia can still use improvement and we know that with the support of research evidence experts, our goal to create easy-to-read, thoroughly referenced articles can be more easily reached and maintained.”

8 Fascinating Reads
Motley Fool, 7 March 2014 link

Wikipedia may save your life, writes The Advisory Board: "Patients and physicians turn to Wikipedia for health care information more than any other source, according to a new IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics report. According to the report, 50% of physicians said they have consulted the site for information on certain medical conditions. IMS found that Wikipedia's top 100 English pages for health care topics were each accessed an average of 1.9 million times during the past year.

Thanks, Fool. I think I missed that one.

How Wikipedia is trying to become a better source for doctors
NIH, WHO help Wikipedia editors
The Advisory Board Company, 24 February 2014 link

In an effort to improve the accuracy and availability of its medical information, Wikipedia has partnered with renowned medical groups to edit existing content and generate new resources, Clara Ritger writes in the National Journal. Wikipedia is the most-used online medical resource for doctors and patients, getting roughly 180 million views per month, according to an IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics study. However, Wikipedia says that fewer than 1% of the articles have been peer-reviewed since the site is curated on a volunteer-only basis.

Medical groups lend a hand

Wikipedia cannot afford to hire doctors and health experts, but it hopes that partnering with medical groups will improve accuracy and availability. To that end, it is launching two health care projects. Through the WikiProject Med Foundation, third-party experts—including the National Institutes of Health, the World Health Organization, the University of San Francisco College of Medicine, and various medical journals—will allow its volunteer editors to edit existing content and generate new material. To help in the effort, the Cochrane Collaboration— a global health care research library that draws on clinicians, researchers, and patient advocates to produce studies on health care policies and treatment—will offer 100 free accounts to Wikipedia editors.

James Heilman, an emergency department doctor and the president of the WikiProject Med Foundation, says the Cochrane partnership is especially valuable because the research draws on such a large group of experts. "The way Wikipedia works is that all content is to stand entirely on the references that are listed," Heilman told Ritger, adding, "If the best quality sources are used to write Wikipedia there's a good chance that Wikipedia will contain the best quality information." Meanwhile, WikiProject Medicine will serve as a discussion forum on health and medical subjects

Which leads us back to this dreck, which was mentioned earlier in this thread:

Wikipedia Is a Massively Popular (Yet Untested) Doctor
Nearly three-fourths of Internet users look up health information online. Wikipedia wants to make sure they're not misled.
National Journal, 20 February 2014 link

[Poetlister]

I had never heard of modafinil before. It looks like this:

Before enwikibadscience blows a fuse, I must explain that atoms aren't really colour-coded like that.

[Vigilant]

I had never heard of modafinil before. It looks like this:

Before enwikibadscience blows a fuse, I must explain that atoms aren't really colour-coded like that.

Is that from a personal inspection viewpoint?

[Mancunium]

I had never heard of modafinil before. It looks like this:

Before enwikibadscience blows a fuse, I must explain that atoms aren't really colour-coded like that.

I prefer to think of my molecules this way:

[Tippi Hadron]

I have limited mobility and chronic pain, and there is a nice little bottle of 50mg codeine tablets in my view as I write this.

So sorry for you. Your work here is appreciated.