Group items tagged

The internet and the online collaboration that it facilitates is quickly becoming an important clinical tool for doctors. This case study focuses on how doctors use Google to diagnose difficult cases. It was chosen as a resource because it provides another example of how online collaboration is benefiting the medical industry. While there is anecdotal evidence that patients use Google for self diagnosis, I was surprised to find that doctors are using Google as well. In this article, Tang & Ng (2006) examine "How good is Google in helping doctors to reach the correct diagnosis?" . This study shows that the "efficiency of the search and the usefulness of the retrieved information also depends on the searchers' knowledge base" (Tang, 2006). For instance, a doctor would know the correct medical terminology for a patient's symptoms and also have an understanding the medical terms that are returned by Google. For this reason "Google searches by a "human expert" (a doctor) have a better yield" while "patients doing a Google search may find the search less efficient and be less likely to reach the correct diagnosis." This study is a valuable resource because its results are statistically based and follow a well-defined method. This study clearly states the results that 15 out of 26 cases were correctly diagnosed using Google. The real importance of this case study is to demonstrate how online collaboration has allowed useful information on even the rarest medical syndromes to be found and digested within a matter of minutes (Tang & Ng, 2006) and that "web based search engines such as Google are becoming the latest tools in clinical medicine" (Tang & Ng, 2006). References: Tang, H., & Ng, J. (2006). Googling for a diagnosis-use of Google as a diagnostic aid: internet based study. Retrieved April 16, 2011, from http://www.bmj.com/content/333/7579/1143.full

In this article, Giustini (2006) explains how web 2.0 and it's intrinsic "spirit of open sharing and collaboration" aids the "continual loop of analysis and refinement" of medical information. Giustini (2006), like Maag (2005), uses the example of blogs - in this case Ves Dimovs's Clinical cases and Images - to demonstrate how online collaboration promotes interactive discussions and timely updates on peer-reviewed medical material. Giustini (2006) also touches on how Google can serve as a diagnostic aid, but this will be examined in my commentary on "Googling for a diagnosis" (Tang, 2006). This article is a valuable resource because it highlights another form of online collaboration: the wiki. Giustini (2006) sees wikis as a place "to create optimal knowledge building opportunities for doctors", which will ultimately advance medical science. Wikis can do this in a number of ways. Firstly, by providing an environment "where knowledge exchange is not limited or controlled by private interests" (Giustini, 2006). Wikis also allow "participation and conversations across a vast geographical expanse" and "permit continuous instant alerting to the latest ideas in medicine" (Giustini, 2006). Wikis could also be used "as a low cost alternative to commercial point of care tools". Giustini's occupation as a medical librarian at the University of British Columbia enhances the credibility of this article. This is why I have chosen it to demonstrate the positive effect online collaboration is having on the medical industry. This article is important because it places the idea of a medical wiki in a much larger context. By breaking down the "old proprietary notions of control and ownership" (Giustini, 2006) of knowledge, wikis "may be the answer to the world's inequities of information access in medicine" (Giustini, 2006). References: Giustini, D. (2006). How Web 2.0 is changing medicine. Retrieved April 16, 2011, from http://www.bmj.com/content/333/7582/1283.full Tan

This article is quite short and not academic but I have included it because it adds some symmetry to the previous articles I have reviewed. While this article is focused specifically on the "risks associated with self-diagnosis and the reliance on 'Dr Google'" (Whyte, 2010), it also serves to highlight a potential problem of online collaboration: credibility and the quality of information. This is its primary value as resource for this project. While Giustini (2006) talks of the open access and freedom of publication that online collaboration allows, I think there is a drawback to online collaboration that hasn't been addressed in the previous articles. Misleading or incorrect information, especially of a medical nature, can be potentially harmful if published. As Whyte (2010) writes in this article, doctors are finding it increasingly concerning that patients are misusing their medication, referring to the internet for advice rather than consulting a trusted GP. Some Google listings that have not been filtered may list incorrect complications and side effects of certain medicines. As a result patients are taking less than the recommended dosage. Dosages or remedies may also be incorrect on Google and this could lead to potentially dangerous overdoses of medicine. Boulos (2006) writes of the problems gauging the reliability and accuracy of information on the internet. While "virtually anybody is able to alter, edit or otherwise contribute to the collaborative Web pages … the very process of collaboration leads to a Darwinian type 'survival of the fittest' content within a Web page" (Boulos, 2006). This would ensure that dubious information was kept to a minimum. Also by providing a closed and secure digital environment, the collaboration process could be carefully monitored and moderated. References: Boulos, M., Maramba, I. & Wheeler, S. (2006). Wikis. blogs and podcasts: a new generation of Web-based tools for virtual collaborative clinical practice and ed