http://www.informationweek.com/news/galleries/healthcare/patient/232700416?pgno=1
A good slide show article to show what a good health related web site should do to substantiate itself and a couple of corroborating sites to verify. .... Thomas
National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine
http://nccam.nih.gov/
The fact that alternative medicine websites vary in quality shouldn't discourage you from investigating the field of CAM (complementary alternative medicine). The National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) takes a balanced, objective approach to the subject, posting both positive and negative reports on herb therapy, nutritional supplements, and a variety of other natural remedies.
What separates this site from less credible ones is the quality of the evidence. The website recently reported on a study that found meditation done over an 8-week period reduces the severity of irritable bowel syndrome symptoms in women. This study, for instance, was carefully controlled to rule out other contributing factors that may have influenced symptoms, and it was published in a respected medical journal--The American Journal of Gastroenterology--which means it first had to go through a review by skeptical scientists who would have rejected it if it hadn't met high standards.
WebMD
http://www.webmd.com/
Contrast Sensa's discussion about weight loss to WebMD's balanced approach. The article on weight-loss supplements pictured above presents the pros and cons in plain English so you can make an informed decision.
For instance, here's an excerpt from the site's discussion of green tea: "Although [the nutritionist Toby] Smithson cautions that there are not enough human studies to prove the effectiveness of green tea extract as a weight-loss supplement, she tells WebMD '...there is some thought that regular consumption may promote weight loss by adjusting resting energy usage and increasing the use of energy.' "
The language here is optimistic but cautious. It suggests that some experiments might support the use of green tea for weight loss, but it's also clear that there's not enough human data to prove its effectiveness.
It's also important to understand the difference between animal versus human research. As you look through health-related web sites, you'll likely find many claims of product success based on "solid scientific evidence published in respected journals." But often the research has been done using only mice. That's hardly proof that the same results will occur in people.
WebMD also earns points for including a list of sources at the end of the article, so users can do their own research on the credibility of the reports cited.
ConsumerLab.com
http://www.consumerlab.com/
The web is full of articles about the benefits of nutritional supplements, and there's good research to suggest some of these supplements can in fact help prevent and treat certain diseases. But many consumers wonder about the quality of the specific brands that they see in the supermarket or online. Does that tablet actually contain 500 mg of vitamin E as listed on the label? Are there any unsafe contaminants in that calcium pill? At least one website can help answer these questions.
ConsumerLab.com does disintegration analysis on numerous products to determine whether they actually dissolve once they enter a person's digestive system or pass through whole. It also contracts with independent laboratories that perform a variety of other tests to verify that the dosage on the label is accurate, for instance, or to check for lead contamination.
One recent analysis of Omega-3 fatty acid supplements reported on the site found quality problems with 7 out of 24 products. Problems included a product with less Omega-3 fatty acids than cited on the label, a children's fish oil formula that was spoiled when purchased, and an enteric-coated fish oil soft-gel that released its oil too early. (Enteric coating prevents a capsule from breaking down until it reaches the small intestine.)
ClinicalTrials.gov
http://clinicaltrials.gov/
Most physicians are much too busy to keep up with all the latest medical research and innovations, and even their online reference tools can sometimes be outdated or too narrowly focused to cover every patient's unique situation. Unfortunately, some clinicians can also be quick to dismiss potentially helpful therapies that are unfamiliar. If your doctor has exhausted all treatment options and you're still suffering, perhaps it's time to think about looking for a clinical trial.
The federal government keeps an online database called clinicaltrials.gov, which lists federally and privately supported clinical trials conducted in the United States and around the world. It provides information about each trial, including its purpose, who may participate, locations, and phone numbers for more details. The site, however, also cautions: "This information should be used in conjunction with advice from health care professionals."
A search for trials for patients suffering from fibromyalgia--a mysterious disorder that causes musculoskeletal pain, fatigue, and localized tenderness--revealed several studies testing the value of acupuncture, and another study examining whether vaccinations play a role.
Medical Library Association
http://caphis.mlanet.org/consumer/
Evaluating medical websites can be a full-time occupation. Fortunately, there are information professionals who are up to the task. CAPHIS, the Consumer and Patient Health Information Section of the Medical Library Association, puts out a useful list of trustworthy health websites and categorizes them by specialty, including women's and men's health, parenting and kids, drug information, and senior health.
Health on the Net Foundation
http://www.hon.ch/HONcode/Conduct.html
The Health on the Net Foundation outlines 8 attributes that a health-related website should include to be considered trustworthy. Sites that follow this "code of honor" can qualify for the foundation's seal of approval, indicated by the HONcode icon on certified sites.
To qualify, a website must be authoritative and maintain complementarity, which means the information should support and not replace the relationship you have with your doctor. The site should also provide attributions for the statements it posts. A page on the site puts it this way: "Where appropriate, information contained on this site will be supported by clear references to source data and, where possible, have specific HTML links to that data. The date when a clinical page was last modified will be clearly displayed..."
Other criteria to earn the HONcode icon: financial disclosures should be provided to identify any funding sources; advertising and editorial content should be separate and clearly marked. And perhaps the most important requirement is something the foundation calls justifiability: "Any claims relating to the benefits/performance of a specific treatment, commercial product, or service will be supported by appropriate, balanced evidence..."
No comments:
Post a Comment