US doctors rely on Wikipedia
MORE THAN half of US doctors use Wackypedia to work out what is wrong with their patients, according to a study published by the Pew Internet and American Life Project.
While US doctors charge their victims, er patients, huge amounts of cash, their actual tool of choice seems to be the free online encyclopedia Wikipedia.
According to New Scientist this means that people with made up doctorates and Daily Tech readers with chips on their shoulders and axes to grind are effectively treating people with serious illnesses.
To be fair to Wackypedia, its medical coverage is not too bad. Studies conducted by the medical community show that the online encyclopedia is almost free of factual errors. Generally its pages get better with time.
However there is the problem that some of Wikipedia's volunteer editors sometimes get bees in their bonnets about certain types of treatment and fill up pages with negative information about some types of drugs.
It also has information on only about 40 per cent of drugs questions and often skips information that is too dull for the editors to want to write. For example you should not take St Johns Wort with the HIV drug Prezista even if you are really depressed about your illness, but you won't find that out at Wikipedia.
There are also potential complications and side effects that Wackypedia's editors can't be bothered to mention, but they are just the sorts of things that doctors need to know when they are prescribing drugs.
The traditionally edited Medscape Drug Reference answered 82 per cent of drug related questions correctly but for some reason it was not as popular with US doctors as Wackypedia.
But both online references fail to mention the Everywhere Girl and only one claims that this writer is a Canadian boxer. µ
Share this:
ShareBusiness Intelligence Software
Customer Relationship Management (CRM)
Enterprise Accounting Software
Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP)
Enterprise Systems Management
At least your doctors can
A) Afford web access
B) Read Wikipedia
C) More or less understand it
Pity us Africans with our dodgy health care systems...
<sarcasm
And it gives you a medical service as well
</sarcasm
You know that someone will now add all the above missing information (and possibly already has done so)?
Cats are actually used as scanners for sickness and cancer. I talking a real kitty here, not a cat scan.
http://www.helium.com/knowledge/90120-can-animals-detect-cancer-in-humans
There is no Wackypedia. This article uses that name in the first sentence, which one would hope would contain only facts. Reading articles is how I learn about web sites. With crazy names like youtube, hulu, orbitz who knows what the next web site will be named?? Making up a fake insult name may seem cool at a bar, but in a news article it is just misleading communication. Oh, and the premise of the article is misguided, since it assumes wikipedia isn't credible, when in fact its accuracy is very impressive. Maybe that is why professionals depend on it???
drug interactions are usually the responsibility of pharmacists. The pharmacist will have a better handle on what specific drugs a person is taking and will have recomendations.
The doctor on the other hand, doesn't always have the current drug information of the patient. People switch doctors, or go to specialists, or whatever, and each doctor may not know what another doctor prescribed.
I'm glad to see they are getting tech savy. They need the help. But, if universal healthcare comes, the internet won't matter. We'll be *ucked.
I see the Inq is still butthurt from the removal of the Everywhere Girl's page...
Here's your secret decoder ring:
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1016083/the-inquirer-guide-to-inquirer-jargon
Seems that teh Inq needs to add an entry for Wackypedia.
Wikipedia is a great source for basic information on common drugs (mechanism of action, indications, abuse, etc), but it should come as a surprise to no one that the treatment of things like drug interactions is not exhaustive or even thorough. Anyone who looks for that sort of information in an encyclopedia is incompetent to put it mildly. But that brings us to a very important question: what sort of information are doctors looking for on Wikipedia and how are they using it? It doesn't look like The INQ or New Scientist bothered to consider this central question, which is kind of pathetic.
As for reliability, I've been using Wikipedia for years and I've never seen vandalism that I couldn't immediately spot. Anything that's not sourced is immediately suspect, which anyone who has spent half a decade in college should know.
In the A&E departments of NHS hospitals I've often seen doctors using medical
books to assist in diagnosis.
Obviously,they are NOT fully trained,but then, I know of GP's that couldn't diagnose a ruddy cold,perhaps they are frightened of being sued if they attach the wrong name to a disease or condition.
In fact,I've been to my local surgery,dropped a 'hint',whereupon, it was immediately confirmed.
Maybe I should have been a 'quack' myself?
"For example you should not take St Johns Wort with the HIV drug Prezista even if you are really depressed about your illness, but you won't find that out at Wikipedia."
Prezista = Darunavir = Protease Inhibitor
Wikipedia
"Examples of drugs causing clinically-significant interactions with St John's wort...Protease Inhibitors"
So Wikipedia proves it's accuracy over the Inquirer, in an article about the accuracy of wikipedia no less.
only part that got to me was saying that sometimes editors get bees in their bonets n write negative stuff about some drugs.
people give drugs tooo much leniancy. if a drug can kill you or give you a terrible rash. damn right make it sound bad. f that.
Side effects include minor rashes spontaneous bleeding and a 20% chance of sudden death. hmm lemme write a positive factual pedia on this.
no the negative needs to be there imo. i've read a few too. i dunno complaning about the editors on wiki makes me feel like ya work for or get bribed from the drug companies. whose givin u viagra?!
It seems INQ's editors haven't done their homework - none of the Pew Internet reports is concerned with wikipedia usage by physicians; New Scientist article links to Manhattan Research as a source of this info (apparently being published in April) - yet, one can only buy such a report for some significant amount of money; can't really say it's verifiable piece of research, can we?
And you may be interested to know that reading other sources can give more sensational information - 2/3 european doctors use wikipedia and recommend it to patiens, again according to Manhattan research...
http://www.pharmanews.eu/research-and-development/89-european-physician-tech-tools-of-the-trade-wikipedia-and-social-networking