To Marjorie - Information as good as it's source..

[Guest guest]

Marjorie: I have learned a great lesson from you regarding

information being only as good as the source. Thank you for that!!

I have always checked authors of literature and if they sound

credible (doctor, phd, any kind of professional, etc) I would take

the info as fact. Now I realize I shouls be much more wary about

what I am reading. I am currently attending school to become a nurse

and would rather not fill my head with misinformation that just

sounds good.

Can you give us a list of sources (journals, websites, etc) you find

to be credible? Any filtering tips you have would be greatly

appreciated.

Thanks! Patty

> > >

> > > > I was wondering why doctors, who should know better, post

> results

> > > > of studies that aren't very useful though sound good. Are

they

> > > > looking to further their reputation in the field? Also, do

> > > > publications accept these " less than useful " articles because

> the

> > > > publications want a flashy article to sell subscriptions?

> > >

> > > It's just the sources you're looking at, Matija, but I think

you

> do

> > a

> > > great job considering quality stuff on the Web is very limited.

> > Skin

> > > and Allergy News isn't following the heartbeat of medicine, and

> it

> > > isn't where physicians go for information or education.

Assuming

> it

> > > is as it appears online, it's one of those throwaway weekly

that

> > > makes its money off selling ads to its target audience, who

> receive

> > > the publication for free. Its article are the excuse, not the

> > reason.

[Guest guest]

Didn't we discuss your nursing career a few months back in private

email? Anyway, congratulations on your career choice, Patty. I

apologize for not remembering what level of nursing are you presently

studying for.

I would recommend trusting your instructors to guide you to the best

sources and references. I'm always learning from mentors and

colleagues and coworkers who is to be trusted and who isn't, within a

context and for a particular time period, rather than as a static

list of names and references.

The luxury of personal reflection: I've repeatedly found for me that

the very best " filter, " online and off, is a good education in the

basics -- it sounds so trite, but I never seem to run into trouble if

the new stuff I accept -- wherever it comes from -- is built upon a

solid framework of what I really, really understand; it's only when I

start jumping steps, incorporating understanding that's too

sophisticated for me, feeling intimidated because I don't know enough

and so cram to quickly learn, or when I'm being lazy in my thinking

and accept what I really don't understand, that I run into problems.

Regarding general information on the Web, sad to say I haven't found

any site that does patient education proud. Too bad Scientific

American is no longer online; their medical articles are hard to get

through, but very worthwhile in the end, and their pictures were

legendary. I recommend the articles in American Family Physician

(http://www.aafp.org/afp/) although even those can be tough-going and

are summary rather than very cutting-edge articles. AFP is a crowd

pleaser among physicians of all specialties for their relatively easy

reading, accuracy, and great pictures.

I bet you'll find some good nursing information sites that carry free

and accurate information, probably more than medical sites. About two

months ago, during a flurry of posts about dry skin, I posted some

sites online I thought was accurate on skin anatomy and how it

related to dry skin. But those were challenging sites, anything I

found that was easier to get through was either inaccurate or so

general as to be useless. But I'll continue to check things out and

keep you posted if I come across anything valuable, and I hope you'll

do the same.

Marjorie

Marjorie Lazoff, MD

> > > >

> > > > > I was wondering why doctors, who should know better, post

> > results

> > > > > of studies that aren't very useful though sound good. Are

> they

> > > > > looking to further their reputation in the field? Also, do

> > > > > publications accept these " less than useful " articles

because

> > the

> > > > > publications want a flashy article to sell subscriptions?

> > > >

> > > > It's just the sources you're looking at, Matija, but I think

> you

> > do

> > > a

> > > > great job considering quality stuff on the Web is very

limited.

> > > Skin

> > > > and Allergy News isn't following the heartbeat of medicine,

and

> > it

> > > > isn't where physicians go for information or education.

> Assuming

> > it

> > > > is as it appears online, it's one of those throwaway weekly

> that

> > > > makes its money off selling ads to its target audience, who

> > receive

> > > > the publication for free. Its article are the excuse, not the

> > > reason.

[Guest guest]

Didn't we discuss your nursing career a few months back in private

email? Anyway, congratulations on your career choice, Patty. I

apologize for not remembering what level of nursing are you presently

studying for.

I would recommend trusting your instructors to guide you to the best

sources and references. I'm always learning from mentors and

colleagues and coworkers who is to be trusted and who isn't, within a

context and for a particular time period, rather than as a static

list of names and references.

The luxury of personal reflection: I've repeatedly found for me that

the very best " filter, " online and off, is a good education in the

basics -- it sounds so trite, but I never seem to run into trouble if

the new stuff I accept -- wherever it comes from -- is built upon a

solid framework of what I really, really understand; it's only when I

start jumping steps, incorporating understanding that's too

sophisticated for me, feeling intimidated because I don't know enough

and so cram to quickly learn, or when I'm being lazy in my thinking

and accept what I really don't understand, that I run into problems.

Regarding general information on the Web, sad to say I haven't found

any site that does patient education proud. Too bad Scientific

American is no longer online; their medical articles are hard to get

through, but very worthwhile in the end, and their pictures were

legendary. I recommend the articles in American Family Physician

(http://www.aafp.org/afp/) although even those can be tough-going and

are summary rather than very cutting-edge articles. AFP is a crowd

pleaser among physicians of all specialties for their relatively easy

reading, accuracy, and great pictures.

I bet you'll find some good nursing information sites that carry free

and accurate information, probably more than medical sites. About two

months ago, during a flurry of posts about dry skin, I posted some

sites online I thought was accurate on skin anatomy and how it

related to dry skin. But those were challenging sites, anything I

found that was easier to get through was either inaccurate or so

general as to be useless. But I'll continue to check things out and

keep you posted if I come across anything valuable, and I hope you'll

do the same.

Marjorie

Marjorie Lazoff, MD

> > > >

> > > > > I was wondering why doctors, who should know better, post

> > results

> > > > > of studies that aren't very useful though sound good. Are

> they

> > > > > looking to further their reputation in the field? Also, do

> > > > > publications accept these " less than useful " articles

because

> > the

> > > > > publications want a flashy article to sell subscriptions?

> > > >

> > > > It's just the sources you're looking at, Matija, but I think

> you

> > do

> > > a

> > > > great job considering quality stuff on the Web is very

limited.

> > > Skin

> > > > and Allergy News isn't following the heartbeat of medicine,

and

> > it

> > > > isn't where physicians go for information or education.

> Assuming

> > it

> > > > is as it appears online, it's one of those throwaway weekly

> that

> > > > makes its money off selling ads to its target audience, who

> > receive

> > > > the publication for free. Its article are the excuse, not the

> > > reason.

[Guest guest]

Didn't we discuss your nursing career a few months back in private

email? Anyway, congratulations on your career choice, Patty. I

apologize for not remembering what level of nursing are you presently

studying for.

I would recommend trusting your instructors to guide you to the best

sources and references. I'm always learning from mentors and

colleagues and coworkers who is to be trusted and who isn't, within a

context and for a particular time period, rather than as a static

list of names and references.

The luxury of personal reflection: I've repeatedly found for me that

the very best " filter, " online and off, is a good education in the

basics -- it sounds so trite, but I never seem to run into trouble if

the new stuff I accept -- wherever it comes from -- is built upon a

solid framework of what I really, really understand; it's only when I

start jumping steps, incorporating understanding that's too

sophisticated for me, feeling intimidated because I don't know enough

and so cram to quickly learn, or when I'm being lazy in my thinking

and accept what I really don't understand, that I run into problems.

Regarding general information on the Web, sad to say I haven't found

any site that does patient education proud. Too bad Scientific

American is no longer online; their medical articles are hard to get

through, but very worthwhile in the end, and their pictures were

legendary. I recommend the articles in American Family Physician

(http://www.aafp.org/afp/) although even those can be tough-going and

are summary rather than very cutting-edge articles. AFP is a crowd

pleaser among physicians of all specialties for their relatively easy

reading, accuracy, and great pictures.

I bet you'll find some good nursing information sites that carry free

and accurate information, probably more than medical sites. About two

months ago, during a flurry of posts about dry skin, I posted some

sites online I thought was accurate on skin anatomy and how it

related to dry skin. But those were challenging sites, anything I

found that was easier to get through was either inaccurate or so

general as to be useless. But I'll continue to check things out and

keep you posted if I come across anything valuable, and I hope you'll

do the same.

Marjorie

Marjorie Lazoff, MD

> > > >

> > > > > I was wondering why doctors, who should know better, post

> > results

> > > > > of studies that aren't very useful though sound good. Are

> they

> > > > > looking to further their reputation in the field? Also, do

> > > > > publications accept these " less than useful " articles

because

> > the

> > > > > publications want a flashy article to sell subscriptions?

> > > >

> > > > It's just the sources you're looking at, Matija, but I think

> you

> > do

> > > a

> > > > great job considering quality stuff on the Web is very

limited.

> > > Skin

> > > > and Allergy News isn't following the heartbeat of medicine,

and

> > it

> > > > isn't where physicians go for information or education.

> Assuming

> > it

> > > > is as it appears online, it's one of those throwaway weekly

> that

> > > > makes its money off selling ads to its target audience, who

> > receive

> > > > the publication for free. Its article are the excuse, not the

> > > reason.