Abstract:
Purpose – - The purpose of this paper is to examine the case for using subject (medical) wikis as a reference tool.Design/methodology/approach – The paper summarises content of ganfyd and WikiMD, comparing their ethos and approach to information. It describes some other medical and health wikis in brief.Findings – As their audience is somewhat more specialised, medical wikis, currently in their infancy, cover topics in more depth than Wikipedia but coverage remains patchy. They may be of particular use for those without access to expensive resources such as UpToDate requiring a short literature review or overview of a topic. Wikis at present are best used as a signpost to other resources with tighter editorial control.Research limitations/implications – The assessment of the subject wikis is brief and the analysis of wikis as a reference tool is largely drawn from general literature, not medical.Practical implications – This assessment provides exposure of subject wikis as a potential reference tool.Originality/value – The paper highlights the existence of subject wikis as a potential more in-depth tool than Wikipedia.

Links:
[Emerald]
[Ingenta]

_______________
Feed-only Footer:
[This space for rent] Want to reach about 3,500 RSS subscribers to this feed? Please get in touch.

Neat. Still, I’d like to know how many health infomation wikis are set up to deliver a mobile version for a variety of mobile browsers.

This reminds me: I’m going to need to do an update on my list of medical wikis in the near future. If you know of any that I don’t have listed, please leave a comment or drop me an email?

_______________
Feed-only Footer:
[This space for rent] Want to reach about 3,500 RSS subscribers to this feed? Please get in touch.

Scope, completeness, and accuracy of drug information in Wikipedia.
Ann Pharmacother. 2008 Dec;42(12):1814-21. Epub 2008 Nov 18.
[PubMed] | [html] | [PDF]

The article compares drug information in Wikipedia to drug information in the Medscape drug reference.

“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.”

And I loved this:

“…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. If these sites are recommended, it should be in the form of a permanent link pointing to the specific recommended version of an entry. Finally, the issues raised in Web 2.0 are not novel, nor are the approaches; consumer education, watchful editors, alert health professionals, and ethical online behavior remain, as ever, the foundation for the safety of Internet health information.”

_______________
Feed-only Footer:
[This space for rent] Want to reach about 3,500 RSS subscribers to this feed? Please get in touch.

• Clinical Research Informatics Wiki
  
  Self-description: “…devoted to topics in clinical research informatics…exists to facilitate collaborative development of articles covering the breadth of the CRI domain.”
  Intended Audience/Users: Not listed.
  Contributors: Anyone who registers
  Editors/Administrators: Listed only by User ID.
  Editorial Policies: None listed.

• MIGHEALTHNET
  Self-description: “This project aims to give professionals, policy makers including health authorities, researchers, educators and representatives of migrant and minority groups easy access to a dynamically evolving body of knowledge and a virtual network of expertise.”
  Intended Audience/Users: “…professionals, policy makers including health authorities, researchers, educators and representatives of migrant and minority groups.”
  Contributors: Anyone who registers and who is approved by administrators.
  Editors/Administrators: Not listed.
  Editorial Policies: Other than these copyright disclaimer notes, none listed.
  Note: This is the UK Wiki of MIGHEALTHNET. Other Wikis serving a similar purpose for other nations can be found here.

_______________
Feed-only Footer:
[This space for rent] Want to reach about 3,500 RSS subscribers to this feed? Please get in touch.

Yay!

You can buy a copy from:
Springer Publishing

or here:

I’m looking forward to eventually seeing it in WorldCat.

Congratulations to Melissa Rethlefsen (who wrote a heck of a lot more than I did)! You should really go email Melissa now and tell her how much she rocks.

_______________
Feed-only Footer:
[This space for rent] Want to reach about 3,500 RSS subscribers to this feed? Please get in touch.

Also: I’ll be on a panel at NYLA tomorrow (Friday, 11/6/2008) afternoon at 4:00 PM- please say hello if you’re going to be there! As usual at these sorts of things, I’ll know almost nobody. But hey- I might get to meet Polly Farrington!

_______________
Feed-only Footer:
[This space for rent] Want to reach about 3,500 RSS subscribers to this feed? Please get in touch.

I’m quoted in the article:

Medical librarian and blogger David Rothman, who regularly writes at DavidRothman.net about medical wikis, expressed concerns about the regular monitoring of Medpedia’s content. “If the academic institutions … wish to avoid embarrassment, I’d recommend that they dedicate some time of their health care experts to regular review of articles,” Rothman wrote.

He estimates about 65 medical wikis exist. He’s not sure what the involvement of prominent medical institutions will mean to the project, noting that comparisons won’t be possible until the site is up and running.

As I usually do when I’m interviewed or quoted, I thought I’d post the entirety of my comments here. Pam got my views partially from this post I wrote about Medpedia and partially from an email. Pam’s questions are bolded:

My question for you is whether or not medpedia will be the largest collaboration of its kind for a medical wiki…

That depends on what you mean by “largest” and what we learn about Medpedia when it comes out of Beta. We haven’t yet seen how many contributors/editors it has or how many articles/words it contains. We won’t know for months after it begins how active a community it has. What other metrics could be used to measure “largeness”? The names of affiliated institutions? Medpedia doesn’t really say exactly what contributions those institutions are making (aside from, apparently, allowing the use of their names and logos).

…and if it will raise the bar for those wanting to develop medical wikis in the future.

I think that remains to be seen. So far, Medpedia looks to the public like a press release and a mock-up. When it is up and running, we can begin to compare it to other efforts. Until then, such comparisons aren’t possible.

_______________
Feed-only Footer:
[This space for rent] Want to reach about 3,500 RSS subscribers to this feed? Please get in touch.

No, I’m not going to add Medpedia to it because Medpedia is still in beta. I’m flabbergasted how much press it is getting while not even visible to the public. They must have hired the right PR firm.

Wikis recently added to the list are noted below (details are in the list itself):

• The McGill Library Global Health Resource Guide

• Case School of Dental Medicine Clinic Manual

• ECGpedia

• Medical University of South Carolina Department of Radiology’s Medical Physics wiki

• EBHC Search Strategies Wiki

• Consumer Health Information (Toronto Public Library)

• Onco Wiki

_______________
Feed-only Footer:
[This space for rent] Want to reach about 3,500 RSS subscribers to this feed? Please get in touch.

_______________
Feed-only Footer:
[This space for rent] Want to reach about 3,500 RSS subscribers to this feed? Please get in touch.

I first wrote about Medpedia in January.

I noted in my post that Medpedia did not seem to specify what would qualify an applicant to become a contributor. Medpedia’s Angela Simmons addressed this in the comments:

Anyone with medical and health knowledge is encouraged to apply to become a Contributor. It is not a requirement that you have medical credentials; however, it is important that you are passionate and knowledgeable about at least one topic related to medicine, health and the body.

My concern here is that clinicians should not use an information resource built by people who are not qualified health professionals. Passion is not, in my view, a sufficient qualification.

I also asked Angela if Medpedia was intended to be a resource for professionals (like UpToDate) or a resource for healthcare consumers (like MedlinePlus). Angela replied:

Initially, Medpedia will be a resource for the general public. Over time, with 1000’s of clinicians and researchers on the site, discussing what should be on the main pages, Medpedia will also become a resource for medical professionals, health educators, and medical schools.

This did not seem promising to me. I don’t believe that a single article on a topic can appropriately serve both healthcare professionals and healthcare consumers- their needs are usually quite different.

Medpedia seems to have addressed some of these concerns since that time. Their index page now only invites “Medical Professionals” to “Apply to be a Member, ” and the FAQ says:

There are multiple ways of contributing. If you are an MD or PhD in the biomedical field, you can apply to become an Editor and make changes directly to Medpedia articles (See more below). If you are anyone else, you can use the “Make a suggestion” link at the top of any page to make a suggestion for that page. An approved Editor will review and potentially add your suggestion.

Also interesting to note that Medpedia will be advertising-supported (neither Ganfyd nor AskDrWiki are ad-supported. AskDrWiki is a non-profit). Again from the FAQ:

To support the costs of operation in the future, non-invasive, text-based advertising will be shown on the Medpedia website through third-party ad networks such as Google’s AdSense or Healthline’s third party ad service. Next to these ads on the page will be a link “Flag inappropriate ads” so that the community can keep the ads on the site clean and useful.

Then there’s the question of how reliable the content will be. The FAQ says:

The seed content available on Medpedia at launch is up to date, accurate, and provided by reputable sources. After launch at the end of 2008, once Editors start making edits and adding new pages to the seed content, it is possible, and even likely that there will be mistakes and language that is unclear. This is the nature of a collaborative wiki.

If the site is meant to be used by healthcare professionals, I’d strongly recommend a routine (Monthy? Quarterly?) review of each article by an admin to make sure the content is accurate and up-to-date. To say “it can’t be kept reliable because it is a wiki” is, in my thinking, a cop-out. After all, Medpedia’s own FAQ says the site is meant to be “…a platform to share the most up-to-date medical knowledge.” If the academic institutions listed on the front page of Medpedia wish to avoid embarrassment, I’d reccommend that they dedicate some time of their healthcare experts to regular review of articles.

Prediction:
(Just a guess, but) I think Medpedia’s content will end up focusing mostly on the information needs of healthcare consumers. In that sense, I think it’ll resemble MayoClinic.com

Criticism aside, here are some things about Medpedia that I DO like:

• Editors/contributors must be qualified health professionals
• Editors/contributors cannot be anonymous
• Content is freely usable under a GNU Free Documentation License

What do you think? Do you anticipate other problems I may have missed? Maybe you think I’m being too critical? Share your thoughts in the comments.

_______________
Feed-only Footer:
[This space for rent] Want to reach about 3,500 RSS subscribers to this feed? Please get in touch.