A comparison of World Wide Web resources for identifying medical information

From WikiLit
Jump to: navigation, search
Publication (help)
A comparison of World Wide Web resources for identifying medical information
Authors: Pamela T. Johnson, Jennifer K. Chen, John Eng, Martin A. Makary, Elliot K. Fishman [edit item]
Citation: Academic Radiology 15 (9): 1165-72. 2008 September.
Publication type: Journal article
Peer-reviewed: Yes
Database(s):
DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2008.02.010.
Google Scholar cites: Citations
Link(s): Paper link
Added by Wikilit team: Added on initial load
Search
Article: Google Scholar BASE PubMed
Other scholarly wikis: AcaWiki Brede Wiki WikiPapers
Web search: Bing Google Yahoo!Google PDF
Other:
Services
Format: BibTeX
A comparison of World Wide Web resources for identifying medical information is a publication by Pamela T. Johnson, Jennifer K. Chen, John Eng, Martin A. Makary, Elliot K. Fishman.


[edit] Abstract

The objective is to compare the utility of a search engine, Google, with other medical and non-medical, web-based resources for identifying specific medical information.This institutional review board-approved case cross-over study randomly assigned 89 medical student volunteers to use either Google or any other web-based resource (excluding Google) to research 10 advanced medical questions in a multiple choice exam. Primary outcome measures were resource efficiency (inversely related to number of links used to identify the correct answer for each question) and correctness (number of correct answers/total number of questions answered). For Google searches, the sites providing the information in question were also evaluated.The most frequently selected non-Google resources were Yahoo (n = 531), Ask.com (n = 110), and the interactive encyclopedia Wikipedia.com (n = 74). Google was more efficient than all other resources (1.50 vs. 1.94 mean links, P .0001), with no significant difference in correctness (97% [756/780] vs. 96% [747/780], P = .16). After a Google search, the four most common categories of sites that provided the correct answer were dictionary/encyclopedia sites, medical websites, National Library of Medicine resources, or journal websites. Yahoo was less efficient than Google (1.90 vs. 1.54 mean links, P .0001). However, non-Google search engines were more efficient than web sites (eg, Wikipedia, medical websites) and PubMed (1.87 vs. 2.54 mean links, P = .0004).Google is an efficient web resource for identifying specific medical information, by guiding users to an array of medical resources.

[edit] Research questions

"In this paper, we propose a method for improving the relevance of contextual ads.We propose a novel “Wikipedia matching” technique that uses Wikipedia articles as “reference points” for ads selection. We show how to combine our newmethod with existing solutions in order to increase the overall performance."

Research details

Topics: Health information source, Ranking and popularity [edit item]
Domains: Health [edit item]
Theory type: Analysis [edit item]
Wikipedia coverage: Sample data [edit item]
Theories: "Undetermined" [edit item]
Research design: Experiment [edit item]
Data source: Experiment responses, Websites [edit item]
Collected data time dimension: Cross-sectional [edit item]
Unit of analysis: Website [edit item]
Wikipedia data extraction: Live Wikipedia [edit item]
Wikipedia page type: Article [edit item]
Wikipedia language: Not specified [edit item]

[edit] Conclusion

"Results The most frequently selected non-Google resources were Yahoo (n = 531), Ask.com (n = 110), and the interactive encyclopedia Wikipedia.com (n = 74). Google was more efficient than all other resources (1.50 vs. 1.94 mean links, P < .0001), with no significant difference in correctness (97% [756/780] vs. 96% [747/780], P = .16). After a Google search, the four most common categories of sites that provided the correct answer were dictionary/encyclopedia sites, medical websites, National Library of Medicine resources, or journal websites. Yahoo was less efficient than Google (1.90 vs. 1.54 mean links, P < .0001). However, non-Google search engines were more efficient than web sites (eg, Wikipedia, medical websites) and PubMed (1.87 vs. 2.54 mean links, P = .0004).

Conclusion Google is an efficient web resource for identifying specific medical information, by guiding users to an array of medical resources."

[edit] Comments

"Experiment: This institutional review board–approved case cross-over study randomly assigned 89 medical student volunteers to use either Google or any other web-based resource (excluding Google) to research 10 advanced medical questions in a multiple choice exam. Primary outcome measures were resource efficiency (inversely related to number of links used to identify the correct answer for each question) and correctness (number of correct answers/total number of questions answered). For Google searches, the sites providing the information in question were also evaluated."


Further notes[edit]

Facts about "A comparison of World Wide Web resources for identifying medical information"RDF feed
AbstractThe objective is to compare the utility ofThe objective is to compare the utility of a search engine, Google, with other medical and non-medical, web-based resources for identifying specific medical information.This institutional review board-approved case cross-over study randomly assigned 89 medical student volunteers to use either Google or any other web-based resource (excluding Google) to research 10 advanced medical questions in a multiple choice exam. Primary outcome measures were resource efficiency (inversely related to number of links used to identify the correct answer for each question) and correctness (number of correct answers/total number of questions answered). For Google searches, the sites providing the information in question were also evaluated.The most frequently selected non-Google resources were Yahoo (n = 531), Ask.com (n = 110), and the interactive encyclopedia Wikipedia.com (n = 74). Google was more efficient than all other resources (1.50 vs. 1.94 mean links, P .0001), with no significant difference in correctness (97% [756/780] vs. 96% [747/780], P = .16). After a Google search, the four most common categories of sites that provided the correct answer were dictionary/encyclopedia sites, medical websites, National Library of Medicine resources, or journal websites. Yahoo was less efficient than Google (1.90 vs. 1.54 mean links, P .0001). However, non-Google search engines were more efficient than web sites (eg, Wikipedia, medical websites) and PubMed (1.87 vs. 2.54 mean links, P = .0004).Google is an efficient web resource for identifying specific medical information, by guiding users to an array of medical resources.ng users to an array of medical resources.
Added by wikilit teamAdded on initial load +
Collected data time dimensionCross-sectional +
CommentsExperiment: This institutional review boarExperiment: This institutional review board–approved case cross-over study randomly assigned 89 medical student volunteers to use either Google or any other web-based resource (excluding Google) to research 10 advanced medical questions in a multiple choice exam. Primary outcome measures were resource efficiency (inversely related to number of links used to identify the correct answer for each question) and correctness (number of correct answers/total number of questions answered). For Google searches, the sites providing the information in question were also evaluated.formation in question were also evaluated.
ConclusionResults

The most frequently selected non-GResults The most frequently selected non-Google resources were Yahoo (n = 531), Ask.com (n = 110), and the interactive encyclopedia Wikipedia.com (n = 74). Google was more efficient than all other resources (1.50 vs. 1.94 mean links, P < .0001), with no significant difference in correctness (97% [756/780] vs. 96% [747/780], P = .16). After a Google search, the four most common categories of sites that provided the correct answer were dictionary/encyclopedia sites, medical websites, National Library of Medicine resources, or journal websites. Yahoo was less efficient than Google (1.90 vs. 1.54 mean links, P < .0001). However, non-Google search engines were more efficient than web sites (eg, Wikipedia, medical websites) and PubMed (1.87 vs. 2.54 mean links, P = .0004).

Conclusion

Google is an efficient web resource for identifying specific medical information, by guiding users to an array of medical resources.ng users to an array of medical resources.
Data sourceExperiment responses + and Websites +
Doi10.1016/j.acra.2008.02.010 +
Google scholar urlhttp://scholar.google.com/scholar?ie=UTF-8&q=%22A%2Bcomparison%2Bof%2BWorld%2BWide%2BWeb%2Bresources%2Bfor%2Bidentifying%2Bmedical%2Binformation%22 +
Has authorPamela T. Johnson +, Jennifer K. Chen +, John Eng +, Martin A. Makary + and Elliot K. Fishman +
Has domainHealth +
Has topicHealth information source + and Ranking and popularity +
Issue9 +
MonthSeptember +
Pages1165-72 +
Peer reviewedYes +
Publication typeJournal article +
Published inAcademic Radiology +
Research designExperiment +
Research questionsIn this paper, we propose a method for impIn this paper, we propose a method for improving the relevance of contextual ads.We propose a novel “Wikipedia matching” technique that uses Wikipedia articles as “reference points” for ads selection. We show how to combine our newmethod with existing solutions in order to increase the overall performance.order to increase the overall performance.
Revid10,628 +
TheoriesUndetermined
Theory typeAnalysis +
TitleA comparison of World Wide Web resources for identifying medical information
Unit of analysisWebsite +
Urlhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2008.02.010 +
Volume15 +
Wikipedia coverageSample data +
Wikipedia data extractionLive Wikipedia +
Wikipedia languageNot specified +
Wikipedia page typeArticle +
Year2008 +