Would you go to a doctor if you knew (s)he used Google to diagnose illnesses?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Doctors using Google to diagnose illnesses

The internet search engine Google has added another impressive string to its bow - by helping doctors diagnose illnesses, according to a new study.

Researchers found that almost six-in-10 difficult cases can be solved by using the world wide web as a diagnostic aid.

Doctors fight disease by carrying about two million facts in their heads but with medical knowledge expanding rapidly, even this may not be enough.

[...]

a team at the Princess Alexandra Hospital in Brisbane identified 26 difficult diagnostic cases ...

[...]

They selected three to five search terms from each case and did a Google search while blind to the correct diagnoses.

[...]

Google searches found the correct diagnosis in 15 (58 per cent) of cases.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/arti...in_page_id=1770

Edited November 10, 2006 by Gupt

[almaty 19]

yes i would

[LaL 418]

yes i would. they may uncover something they had not heard of previously. but certainly google could not be the primary source

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

... google could not be the primary source

Yeah, then we could all be doctors!

[LaL 418]

comes to mind

[Arazia 0]

If the doctor solely depended on Google to make a diagnosis - then no, I wouldn't go to them. Of course, that would make them a really crappy doctor to begin with. That is the reason that self-diagnosis based on internet research isn't always accurate.

If the doctor used it as a reference, like any other physician's reference - then I wouldn't have a problem with going to them. Would I chose them over another doctor based on using Google as a resource? No. But I certainly wouldn't change doctors or avoid them because they use it.

[Jenn! 918]

That is the reason that self-diagnosis based on internet research isn't always accurate.

Phew! I usually get the diagnosis that it is "very likely" that I have some horrible terminal illness.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

No, because I could achieve the same effect as a voracious reader of Robin Cook and Henry Denker.

[Wild Wind 0]

Many years ago I was diagnosed with gallstones they recommended removal of my gallbladder. I actually researched yahoo search and discovered how to removed gallstones without surgery. The surgeons were actually calling me to schedule surgery when I told them I had passed the gallstones, they did not want to hear anymore. I visited my doctor who did some more blood test and he was totally amazed at the results one of his comments was “this is amazing”. His comment was what ever your doing don’t stop. It was a simple old time remedy still used today involving extra virgin olive oil and lemon or grapefruit juice. So I have found that researching for alternatives is very valuable, you can always discuss these with a medical doctor and hopefully he/she has a background in natural healing for the most part I believe their a multi billion dollar industry based on surgery and medications.

Edited November 10, 2006 by Wild Wind

[Kez/JWolf 6]

Doctors use many sources of reference.... google is just one of them.... google has more than just self diagnosis tools... it has links to all the latest research papers published....

A doctor who uses google would be much better than a doctor who relies on 10 year old books as a reference......

[Mags 112]

Google is used as a supplement to their knowledge not the sole source. So, yes, I'd use a doctor who was using Google.

[sparkofcreation 0]

In the 21st century, I'd be wary of a doctor who didn't use the Internet as a reference in his/her work, just as I'd be wary of someone in my profession who didn't.

I have a friend whose sister nearly went blind from a very rare eye infection (she's had one cornea transplant so far and is expected to need another) that was finally diagnosed because my friend found something on Google and they finally found a doctor who was willing to use the Internet to research because the type of infection didn't appear in any published literature.

[Caladan 19]

Many doctors already use the Internet, or Internet-like databases of interesting case studies.

If it were all they used, of course not. But I wouldn't go to a hack that only looked at his DSM either. The Internet isn't always accurate, but a doctor is going to know whether what is popping up on the search engine is likely.

scholar.google.com has been a great resource for academics because all it does is link to peer-reviewed articles. Doctors could use the same.

[perfect 39]

Not if that was his/her primary method of diagnosing conditions.

[Cristy 4]

Sure. I think they should use all available resources.