- Joined
- Sep 20, 2014
- Messages
- 225
- Reaction score
- 103
Wikipedia used by 50% of Doctors ?
- Thread starter malick1
- Start date
- Joined
- May 15, 2011
- Messages
- 9,906
- Reaction score
- 10,039
More like UpToDate.
Wikipedia gets such a bad rap because it's true, it can be edited by anyone, but you have to learn to use the References section. Most facts on a well-cited Wiki page are referenced with primary sources. Wikipedia is a perfectly acceptable initial stepping stone, as long as you understand that there's a chance the information is not correct.
I've never seen an attending or resident I've worked with using Wikipedia, though. Mainly UpToDate or Epocrates. And sometimes even THOSE are wrong.
Wikipedia gets such a bad rap because it's true, it can be edited by anyone, but you have to learn to use the References section. Most facts on a well-cited Wiki page are referenced with primary sources. Wikipedia is a perfectly acceptable initial stepping stone, as long as you understand that there's a chance the information is not correct.
I've never seen an attending or resident I've worked with using Wikipedia, though. Mainly UpToDate or Epocrates. And sometimes even THOSE are wrong.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2009
- Messages
- 1,988
- Reaction score
- 2,576
Wiki is useful if you're trying to remember something like... say, the PERC rule.
It's not the best go-to source for things like, the best treatment strategy for a GI bleeder with a pulmonary embolus.
On the other hand, it is useful to know what your patients are reading about their condition. If Wiki suggests that for a certain gum condition, swish and spitting a dilute bleach solution is beneficial, then when you have someone come in with condition X and stomach pains and vomiting you can tell them to stop drinking bleach.
It's not the best go-to source for things like, the best treatment strategy for a GI bleeder with a pulmonary embolus.
On the other hand, it is useful to know what your patients are reading about their condition. If Wiki suggests that for a certain gum condition, swish and spitting a dilute bleach solution is beneficial, then when you have someone come in with condition X and stomach pains and vomiting you can tell them to stop drinking bleach.
People are going to screw around and joke-edit Justin Beiber on Wikipedia. I don't think anybody taking the time to make contributions to the superior pancreaticoduodenal artery page is going to put nonsense on there.
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2012
- Messages
- 1,694
- Reaction score
- 1,948
I use wikipedia solely for all of my grand-rounds presentations.
On a more serious note, I have used it in the office when describing a new condition to a patient. I'll load the page on their diagnosis and explain to them in general terms the specific medical terms. For what it's worth, I have had patients comment that they appreciate this because it is a resource they can use at home, and understanding it better puts context to their condition.
On a more serious note, I have used it in the office when describing a new condition to a patient. I'll load the page on their diagnosis and explain to them in general terms the specific medical terms. For what it's worth, I have had patients comment that they appreciate this because it is a resource they can use at home, and understanding it better puts context to their condition.
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2010
- Messages
- 1,958
- Reaction score
- 2,076
It might not be nonsense, but there's greater likelihood that it's incorrect. Anytime I've used Wikipedia to get a quick first look or overview of a topic I'm not really familiar with for PCL presentations, and then gone back after going through primary sources and texts I've always found a number of not so minor mistakes on Wikipedia.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2014
- Messages
- 11,384
- Reaction score
- 24,027
I use wikipedia to remember things I've learned before
uptodate is too unwieldy to go to all the time
uptodate is too unwieldy to go to all the time
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2007
- Messages
- 880
- Reaction score
- 131
wiki is way quicker, people are using it more and more, especially for simple things like what is the generic name of some brand name drug
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2011
- Messages
- 3,477
- Reaction score
- 1,676
wikipedia is ****ing fine and people use it all the time in real life. It had a bad rap in like 2004 because the quality control wasn't as tight as it is now.
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2009
- Messages
- 9,746
- Reaction score
- 1,667
more like 100%
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2007
- Messages
- 880
- Reaction score
- 131
This. I've seen every resident and attending use Wiki. Most doctors already know the clinical guidelines that they practice every day, so they don't need UpToDate. But for looking up basic stuff that they forgot from medical school? Wiki is the way to go.
Wiki is also much more readable. No one wants to pull up seven 40-page articles on glioblastoma if they just want to know the gist of what it is in 5 minutes.
- Joined
- May 22, 2008
- Messages
- 17,394
- Reaction score
- 9,144
Yeah, this really is the problem with UTD. It's an excellent resource, but only if I have 15-20 minutes to spend reading a topic and understanding it thoroughly. For quick fact-finding, Wiki is the way to go.
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2012
- Messages
- 5,173
- Reaction score
- 4,759
Interesting. They've been pushing us to use Dynamed over UTD, supposedly more evidence and less opinion. As an M2 it's all the same to me for the time being.
- Joined
- May 22, 2008
- Messages
- 17,394
- Reaction score
- 9,144
I see them as different sources with different objectives. DynaMed gives you a nice overview of evidence-based guidelines, but I don't find it too helpful as a reference source. The only times I used DynaMed were to prepare presentations and make sure I knew about major studies touching on the topic I was presenting. UTD is substantially better (IMO) when it comes to actually learning clinical information that can help you manage a patient.
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2004
- Messages
- 30,872
- Reaction score
- 10,060
People use it in med school at their own peril - tons of errors. As soon as people get further along they learn there are better and more trustworthy online resources for virtually every specialty. The number of "doctors" that use still wiki is probably single digit percent.
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2014
- Messages
- 1,921
- Reaction score
- 2,657
A good doctor will know the appropriate time to use the appropriate resource. Sometimes that resource is Wikipedia, others it's UTD, a nurse, a specialist, whatever it may be. You get trained in medical school to utilize resources. A huge part of being a doctor is knowing what you know and don't know. And when you don't know something, you know the most effective way to get an answer for that scenario.
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2006
- Messages
- 35,520
- Reaction score
- 15,481
I'm surprised that many admitted to it.
