Conway McLean, DPM, newspaper columnist
These are strange times, a simple statement that most people would agree with. Our coasts creep inland, potentially displacing millions of people, as climate change alters the planet’s surface. Human interaction is a diminishing good. Americans are on their phones 24 hours a day, connected in record numbers to the information highway, addicted to the screen. As a result, we are constantly inundated with information on every topic imaginable. Yet, the accuracy of much of this material is questionable.
The voracity of information provided by the Internet has had unintended consequences. Since almost everyone has the ability to publish information, regardless of its accuracy, you can find a rich assortment of opinions, recommendations and facts on our digital highway. You just need to turn on your computer or pick up your phone.
Much of the information on the Internet is unvetted and does not come from credible sources. No experts review the accuracy of the piece, no objective third party has evaluated the conclusions drawn. There is usually some bias in terms of what data is selected for presentation. Too often the author has some “meats in the fire”, meaning they have some plan in writing the article.
A peer-reviewed journal is different. All articles published within have been reviewed by industry experts. This process provides rigorous quality control, ensuring the accuracy and relevance of the article. This screening process is extremely restrictive and content is scrutinized. Most submitted items typically do not meet the requirements and are never published.
The language required for peer-reviewed journals is technical in nature and provides the necessary precision. Journals in which articles of this type appear have very restrictive guidelines regarding the language used. As a result, someone without medical training could misinterpret the data or derived information. The knowledge base needed to understand the nuances of the material is usually considerable.
The most definitive information in medical science comes from double-blind clinical studies. These are studies with rigorous standards, with few variables, constructed with precision. In a study of this type, neither the patient nor the researcher is aware whether they are taking the placebo or the real medicine. The goal is to remove the biases that would accompany knowing the type of treatment you are receiving.
Obtaining medical information from the Internet has led to delays in treatment, seemingly justifying a self-made diagnosis or assumptions about the severity of the condition. Many Americans have avoided seeking professional help because of inaccurate information obtained this way. The Internet can also be used to promote content that is not scientifically based or “fringe” health practices.
When given a diagnosis, a natural desire should be to better understand the condition, the mechanism of the disease, and how it works. Most of us will achieve some inner peace by having a basic understanding of any disease we develop. But a discussion about treatment can be complicated and often requires a deeper understanding of the science of the disease, the biochemistry of the systems at play, the physiology of the tissues. Conflicting treatment recommendations are common in medicine as there is much about this topic that is not well defined. It can be difficult to visualize and understand the various support options used.
It should be obvious that the patient has a say in the treatments provided; their consent is a necessity. It is their body, and although the doctor inherently has significantly more understanding of the nuances of the condition, it is the patient who will undergo the treatment and experience the side effects, the complications. They are the ones who live with the long-term benefits and limitations of some treatment regimens. As a result, major decisions made regarding medical care must be a joint venture.
Unfortunately, the mentality has developed that, armed with the plethora of data on the Internet, anyone can do some research and become an expert. Clearly this is not the case. A superficial understanding of some condition or a particular therapy or treatment is beneficial. But a lay individual, someone who has not spent thousands of hours studying the complexity of the systems that make up the human body, cannot become an expert in a week of study.
It is now clear that information obtained from the Internet, and not the result of well-structured medical research, must be treated with caution. The accuracy of many of the available articles should be read with a critical eye and their conclusions questioned. Decisions regarding medical treatment should not be made based on Internet sources but on a joint decision between the individual who has the disease and the expert knowledgeable in that disease.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Dr. Conway McLean is a podiatrist now practicing foot and ankle medicine in the Upper Peninsula, having taken over the practice of Dr. Ken Tabor. McLean has lectured internationally on surgery and wound care, and is certified in both, with a subspecialty in orthotic foot therapy. Dr. McLean welcomes questions, comments and suggestions at drcmclean@penmed.com.
#Health #matters #Studies #show #Internet #research #create #expert