http://in.reuters.com/article/health/idINTRE4AN7BO20081124
"NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Consumers who rely on the user-edited Web resource Wikipedia for information on medications are putting themselves at risk of potentially harmful drug interactions and adverse effects, new research shows.
"Dr. Kevin A. Clauson of Nova Southeastern University in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida and his colleagues found few factual errors in their evaluation of Wikipedia entries on 80 drugs. But these entries were often missing important information, for example the fact that the anti-inflammatory drug Arthrotec (diclofenac and misoprostol) can cause pregnant women to miscarry, or that St. John's wort can interfere with the action of the HIV drug Prezista (darunavir)."
Personally, if I edit a drug article I try to link the official US or UK (or preferably both) patient information leaflets, and a list of side-effects and their known frequency (1 in 10, 1 in 100, 1 in 1000, etc) is highly relevant. Anyone else?
- d.
News just in: People that self-medicate based on what they've read in an encyclopaedia sometimes get it wrong.
2008/11/25 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
News just in: People that self-medicate based on what they've read in an encyclopaedia sometimes get it wrong.
That said, I frequently look up medications in Wikipedia, applying of course my "this is not reliable but it may be useful" filter. I do look for stuff like side-effect lists in the article and official patient information sheets in the external links.
- d.
2008/11/25 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
2008/11/25 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
News just in: People that self-medicate based on what they've read in an encyclopaedia sometimes get it wrong.
That said, I frequently look up medications in Wikipedia, applying of course my "this is not reliable but it may be useful" filter. I do look for stuff like side-effect lists in the article and official patient information sheets in the external links.
Of course, Wikipedia is a very useful resource, you just need to know what you should and shouldn't use it for. Getting a general idea of what the drug is and finding links to more reliable resources is an excellent use for it, using it to decide whether or not to take a given drug is not a good use for it - that is a good use of a doctor or pharmacist.
A reason _is_ why prescription medication needs a professional signature, and I would like to think that expert reviews of our documentation are available. As long as the rest of us take out the more obvious garbage, I think it can happen.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Thomas Dalton" thomas.dalton@gmail.com To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 6:23 AM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] How's our coverage of medications?
2008/11/25 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
2008/11/25 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
News just in: People that self-medicate based on what they've read in an encyclopaedia sometimes get it wrong.
That said, I frequently look up medications in Wikipedia, applying of course my "this is not reliable but it may be useful" filter. I do look for stuff like side-effect lists in the article and official patient information sheets in the external links.
Of course, Wikipedia is a very useful resource, you just need to know what you should and shouldn't use it for. Getting a general idea of what the drug is and finding links to more reliable resources is an excellent use for it, using it to decide whether or not to take a given drug is not a good use for it - that is a good use of a doctor or pharmacist.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
2008/11/25 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
or that St. John's wort can interfere with the action of the HIV drug Prezista (darunavir)."
I would expect that article to be something of a battleground.
This is a case where I would suggest the problem is less wikipedia and more the quality of medical information online.
David Gerard schreef:
http://in.reuters.com/article/health/idINTRE4AN7BO20081124
"NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Consumers who rely on the user-edited Web resource Wikipedia for information on medications are putting themselves at risk of potentially harmful drug interactions and adverse effects, new research shows.
The original abstract is available at http://www.theannals.com/cgi/content/abstract/aph.1L474v1 . It's not all bad news!
Some more details: "Wikipedia performed poorly regarding information on dosing, with a score of 0% versus the MDR score of 90.0%." I believe this is because of an explicit Wikipedia policy to discourage dosage information, to prevent self-medication.
"No factual errors were found in Wikipedia, whereas 4 answers in Medscape conflicted with the answer key" (!!!)
"current entries were superior to those 90 days prior (p = 0.024)." First scientific proof that quality still is improving?
Eugene
From: "David Gerard" dgerard@gmail.com (...)
Personally, if I edit a drug article I try to link the official US or UK (or preferably both) patient information leaflets, and a list of side-effects and their known frequency (1 in 10, 1 in 100, 1 in 1000, etc) is highly relevant. Anyone else?
The part about fair use guidelines that applies is how important the information is for public safety. Drug interactions and side-effects are practically public domain information. Linking is still very nice, because some people ask "How would I know that?", "How big is the problem?", and the eternal question, "Why?". _______ <a href="http://ecn.ab.ca/~brewhaha/">BrewJay's Babble Bin</a>