From: "Bastian, Hilda (NIH/NLM/NCBI) [C]"
Reply-To: Wiki Medicine discussion
Date: Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 1:09 PM
To: Wiki Medicine discussion, Osama Khalid
Subject: Re: [Wiki-Medicine] Criteria to evaluate medical article importance?
G’day!
I agree with Lane about this not being clear– there’s little overlap between places, other than a relatively small number of predictable things (such as diseases like asthma, cancer, and diabetes). I wrote a paper after working on this a lot, in terms
of criteria for priorities from a consumer point of view:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22004776
I wouldn’t use MedlinePlus coverage as a starting point – it draws on a base that itself is skewed against certain subjects by nature of the focus of the sources (e.g. not strong on women’s health).
The point-of-care resource for doctors, UpToDate, is one that is widely used by doctors, and its coverage is regarded by doctors as one of its strengths – but I haven’t analyzed that one against others:
A really important one is the list of topics that Google develops knowledge panels with Mayo Clinic, as this would be based on the most searched-for diseases. I thought there was a public way to get that list, but I can’t see it at the moment.
NHS Choices is another list that’s broadly based on real-world from patients’ point of view:
Hilda
From: Lane Rasberry
Reply-To: Wiki Medicine discussion
Date: Saturday, February 13, 2016 at 6:15 PM
To: Wiki Medicine discussion, Osama Khalid
Subject: Re: [Wiki-Medicine] Criteria to evaluate medical article importance?
Osama,
You last posted to this list in October. You had this idea about having a "list of primary topics" so that when someone proposes a Wikipedia partnership, the partner group or organization or school can see a list of about 100 articles which Wikipedians
are requesting that the partner or project edit. I heard this idea again, and am beginning to think that this might be a common request.
How many articles do you think should be priority? 100 seems to be the most common suggestion.
There is some history in English Wikipedia of trying to make priority lists for either 100 or 1000 articles on a topic.
I am unaware of a third-party publication for defining what medical topics ought to be covered. There are consumer health publishers in English that publish broadly but none are so broad as Wikipedia and I am not convinced that any of them are too thoughtful
about listing what topics ought to be covered. MedlinePlus is probably more thoughtful than others.
<
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MedlinePlus>
I hope that you are well. I will keep the list idea in mind and talk with others about it.
yours,