One for Geoff. The current blurb from HCN quotes a BMJ article http://www.bmj.com/cgi/rapidpdf/bmj.39003.640567.AEv1, "Googling for a diagnosis—use of Google as a diagnostic aid: internet based study".
The study looked at 26 cases from the NEJM Case Records articles in 2005. The researchers identified 3 to 5 key terms for each article and ran them through Google, which found the correct diagnosis in 15 of the 26 selected cases or about 60%. HCN concludes that using the internet to diagnose rare conditions or presentations is wrong 40% of the time. It goes on to suggest that doctors would be well served by using their MD Reference tool which searches Harrison's, Murtagh and CURRENT Diagnosis and Treatment Series and other more reliable sources. I am not convinced and am reminded by all this of the Fed's Health InSite, http://www.healthinsite.gov.au/. Superficially this looks like a worthwhile endeavour but I cannot but help get the feeling that they should close it down, put a redirect on the home page and use a tenth the money to get medical experts to make an entry in the wikipedia, http://www.healthinsite.gov.au/. I do acknowledge that this might not work. Imparting knowledge is just one reason to publish. I suspect the majority of academic researchers do it to avoid perishing. David _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
