Googling for a diagnosis

Link: Googling for a diagnosis--use of Google as a diagnostic aid: internet based study This is a paper that has been published in the British Medical Journal, with the conclusions being "As internet access becomes more readily available in outpatient clinics and hospital wards, the web is rapidly becoming an important clinical tool for doctors. The use of web based searching may help doctors to diagnose difficult cases."

There are a number of responses to the paper, and it's worth having a look at them, particularly to see who wrote them, what they said, and where they are from. I'm not really going to bother to argue with the paper here; it's not really the place for a long discourse about the insanity of the suggestion, and I'll freely admit to being very biased anyway. I have input my own rapid response, and it will be interesting to see if the BMJ publish it.

No, what's interesting is how quietly this appears to have been taken by the medical librarianship profession. Of the 15 responses published only 3 of them were from librarians or medical information professionals. Given the importance of the subject (it was on the front page of one of the free London newspapers) I do find it surprising to see the apparent silence, though quite clearly I could just be missing out on a whole raft of discussions - if that's the case, please let me know because I'd love to highlight what the medical information professionals and organisations are saying about this to provide a counterpoint to the ridiculous nature of the original article. Or, given my clear bias, if you agree with the paper I'd love to hear your views!

Comments

[Stuart Benjamin]

Phil, there's been a fair amount of comment on this on the JISCmail LIS-Medical list. I've even written something on my blog - but have been too much of a cowardy custard to write a comment for the actual BMJ article.

[Tom]

Most of the librarian commenting on this was done behind the shelter of lis-medical, a Jiscmail list, which perhaps says something about how we would much rather moan to one another than talk to the wider world.
For myself, I think we need to draw a distinction between the paper itself, which is not without interest, though taking only 26 cases from only one journal weakens it considerably, and the way it was reported in the press.