Google searches help with diagnosis in dermatology.

Montassar Amri, Kaliyadan Feroz
{"title":"Google searches help with diagnosis in dermatology.","authors":"Montassar Amri, Kaliyadan Feroz","doi":"10.14236/jhi.v21i2.52","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\nSeveral previous studies have tried to assess the usefulness of Google search as a diagnostic aid. The results were discordant and have led to controversies.\n\n\nOBJECTIVES\nTo investigate how often Google search is helpful to reach correct diagnoses in dermatology.\n\n\nMETHODS\nTwo fifth-year students (A and B) and one demonstrator (C) have participated as investigators in this paper. Twenty-five diagnostic dermatological cases were selected from all the clinical cases published in the Web only images in clinical medicine from March 2005 to November 2009. The main outcome measure of our paper was to compare the number of correct diagnoses provided by the investigators without, and with Google search.\n\n\nRESULTS\nInvestigator A gave correct diagnoses in 9/25 (36%) cases without Google search, his diagnostic success after Google search was 18/25 (72%). Investigator B results were 11/25 (44%) correct diagnoses without Google search, and 19/25 (76%) after this search. For investigator C, the results were 12/25 (48%) without Google search, and 18/25 (72%) after the use of this tool. Thus, the total correct diagnoses provided by the three investigators were 32 (42.6%) without Google search, and 55 (73.3%) when using this facility. The difference was statistically significant between the total number of correct diagnoses given by the three investigators without, and with Google search (p = 0.0002).\n\n\nCONCLUSION\nIn the light of our paper, Google search appears to be an interesting diagnostic aid in dermatology. However, we emphasize that diagnosis is primarily an art based on clinical skills and experience.","PeriodicalId":30591,"journal":{"name":"Informatics in Primary Care","volume":"21 2","pages":"70-2"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Informatics in Primary Care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14236/jhi.v21i2.52","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

BACKGROUND Several previous studies have tried to assess the usefulness of Google search as a diagnostic aid. The results were discordant and have led to controversies. OBJECTIVES To investigate how often Google search is helpful to reach correct diagnoses in dermatology. METHODS Two fifth-year students (A and B) and one demonstrator (C) have participated as investigators in this paper. Twenty-five diagnostic dermatological cases were selected from all the clinical cases published in the Web only images in clinical medicine from March 2005 to November 2009. The main outcome measure of our paper was to compare the number of correct diagnoses provided by the investigators without, and with Google search. RESULTS Investigator A gave correct diagnoses in 9/25 (36%) cases without Google search, his diagnostic success after Google search was 18/25 (72%). Investigator B results were 11/25 (44%) correct diagnoses without Google search, and 19/25 (76%) after this search. For investigator C, the results were 12/25 (48%) without Google search, and 18/25 (72%) after the use of this tool. Thus, the total correct diagnoses provided by the three investigators were 32 (42.6%) without Google search, and 55 (73.3%) when using this facility. The difference was statistically significant between the total number of correct diagnoses given by the three investigators without, and with Google search (p = 0.0002). CONCLUSION In the light of our paper, Google search appears to be an interesting diagnostic aid in dermatology. However, we emphasize that diagnosis is primarily an art based on clinical skills and experience.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
谷歌搜索有助于皮肤科诊断。
背景:之前的几项研究试图评估谷歌搜索作为诊断辅助工具的有效性。结果是不一致的,并引发了争议。目的:探讨谷歌搜索对皮肤科正确诊断的帮助。方法:两名五年级学生(A和B)和一名示范学生(C)作为研究人员参与本文。从2005年3月至2009年11月在临床医学网站上发表的所有临床病例中选择25例皮肤病诊断病例。我们论文的主要结果测量是比较没有谷歌搜索和有谷歌搜索的研究者提供的正确诊断的数量。结果:研究者A未经Google搜索诊断正确率为9/25(36%),经Google搜索诊断成功率为18/25(72%)。研究者B的结果是11/25(44%)的正确诊断没有谷歌搜索,19/25(76%)搜索后。对于研究者C,未使用Google搜索的结果为12/25(48%),使用该工具后为18/25(72%)。因此,三位研究者在未使用Google搜索时提供的正确诊断总数为32例(42.6%),而在使用Google搜索时提供的正确诊断总数为55例(73.3%)。三名研究者在没有谷歌搜索和使用谷歌搜索的情况下给出的正确诊断总数之间的差异具有统计学意义(p = 0.0002)。结论:根据我们的论文,谷歌搜索似乎是一个有趣的皮肤科诊断辅助。然而,我们强调诊断主要是一门基于临床技能和经验的艺术。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
14 weeks
期刊最新文献
Exploring an informed decision-making framework using in-home sensors: older adults' perceptions. Undertaking sociotechnical evaluations of health information technologies. Privacy protection for personal health information and shared care records. Coding errors in an analysis of the impact of pay-for-performance on the care for long-term cardiovascular disease: a case study. Effective pseudonymisation and explicit statements of public interest to ensure the benefits of sharing health data for research, quality improvement and health service management outweigh the risks.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1