medigraphic.com
Colegio de Medicina Interna de México.

2011, Number 5

<< Back Next >>

Med Int Mex 2011; 27 (5)

Information technology in the continuing medical training in Internal Medicine

Palencia DR

Language: Spanish
References: 15
Page: 470-478
PDF size: 655.40 Kb.


ABSTRACT

The accesses to scientific information have undergone a profound change, which has caused the breaking of paradigms. Knowledge has the conferences; magazines and books on paper for the monitors, being the Internet, the main tool in the search for information by health professionals. The objectives of this is to give an overview of the main tool and instruments available to the clinician fot access to scientific Information, reduce query times in a practical and effective, identify elements to store and organize Information and identify the importance of social networks as a communication and dissemination of science.


REFERENCES

  1. Lorenzo S, Mira JJ. Are Spanish physicians ready to take advantage of the Internet? World Hosp Health Serv 2004;40:31-5, 41-43.

  2. Gómez-Tello V, Latour-Perez J, Elizalde JM, Palencia-Herrejón. Uso de Internet y recursos electrónicos entre médicos intensivistas españoles. Primera Encuesta Nacional. Med Intensiva 2006; 30:249-259.

  3. Masters K. For what purpose and reasons do doctors use the Internet: a systematic review? Int J Med Inform 2008;77:4-16.

  4. Marqués Faner J. Lista de hospitales españoles con Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, blog, flickr (13 deabrilde2010). Consultado 15/4/2010.Disponible en: http://jmfaner.word press.com/2010/04/13/lista-de-hospitales-espanoles-con-twitterfacebook-youtube-blog-flickr/.

  5. Sackett DL, Strauss SE, Richardson WS, Rosenberg W, Haynes RB. Medicina basada en la evidencia. Cómo practicar y enseñar la MBE. 2ª ed. Madrid: Harcourt, 2001.

  6. Al-Ubaydli M. Using search engines to find online medical information. PLoS Medicine 2005;2:842.

  7. Johnson PT, Chen JK, Eng J, Makary MA, Fishman EK. A comparison of World Wide Web resources for identifying medical information. Acad Radiol 2008;15:1165-1172.

  8. Greenwald R. And a diagnostic test was performed. N Engl J Med 2005;353:2089-2090.

  9. Tang H, Ng J. Googling for a diagnosis-use of Google as a diagnostic aid: Internet based study. BMJ 2006;333:1143-1145.

  10. Falagas ME, Ntziora F, Makris GC, Malietzis GA, Rafailidis PI. Do PubMed and Google searches help medical students and young doctors reach the correct diagnosis? A pilot study. Eur J Intern Med. 2009;20:788-790.

  11. Giustini D. How Google is changing medicine. BMJ 2005;31:1487-1489.

  12. Freeman MK, Lauderdale SA, Kendrach MG, Woolley TW. Google Scholar versus PubMed in locating primary literature to answer drug-related questions. Ann Pharmacother 2009;43:478-484.

  13. Shultz M. Comparing test searches in Pub Med and Google Scholar. J Med LibrAssoc 2007;95:442-445.

  14. Lowes R. Can Google make you a better doctor? Med Econ 2007;84:24-25.

  15. Henderson. J. Google Scholar: A source for clinicians? CMAJ 2005;172:1549-1550.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com