RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To compare the utility of a search engine, Google, with other medical and non-medical, web-based resources for identifying specific medical information. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This institutional review board-approved case cross-over study randomly assigned 89 medical student volunteers to use either Google or any other web-based resource (excluding Google) to research 10 advanced medical questions in a multiple choice exam. Primary outcome measures were resource efficiency (inversely related to number of links used to identify the correct answer for each question) and correctness (number of correct answers/total number of questions answered). For Google searches, the sites providing the information in question were also evaluated. RESULTS: The most frequently selected non-Google resources were Yahoo (n=531), Ask.com (n=110), and the interactive encyclopedia Wikipedia.com (n=74). Google was more efficient than all other resources (1.50 vs. 1.94 mean links, P<.0001), with no significant difference in correctness (97% [756/780] vs. 96% [747/780], P=.16). After a Google search, the four most common categories of sites that provided the correct answer were dictionary/encyclopedia sites, medical websites, National Library of Medicine resources, or journal websites. Yahoo was less efficient than Google (1.90 vs. 1.54 mean links, P<.0001). However, non-Google search engines were more efficient than web sites (eg, Wikipedia, medical websites) and PubMed (1.87 vs. 2.54 mean links, P=.0004). CONCLUSION: Google is an efficient web resource for identifying specific medical information, by guiding users to an array of medical resources.
RCT Entities:
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To compare the utility of a search engine, Google, with other medical and non-medical, web-based resources for identifying specific medical information. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This institutional review board-approved case cross-over study randomly assigned 89 medical student volunteers to use either Google or any other web-based resource (excluding Google) to research 10 advanced medical questions in a multiple choice exam. Primary outcome measures were resource efficiency (inversely related to number of links used to identify the correct answer for each question) and correctness (number of correct answers/total number of questions answered). For Google searches, the sites providing the information in question were also evaluated. RESULTS: The most frequently selected non-Google resources were Yahoo (n=531), Ask.com (n=110), and the interactive encyclopedia Wikipedia.com (n=74). Google was more efficient than all other resources (1.50 vs. 1.94 mean links, P<.0001), with no significant difference in correctness (97% [756/780] vs. 96% [747/780], P=.16). After a Google search, the four most common categories of sites that provided the correct answer were dictionary/encyclopedia sites, medical websites, National Library of Medicine resources, or journal websites. Yahoo was less efficient than Google (1.90 vs. 1.54 mean links, P<.0001). However, non-Google search engines were more efficient than web sites (eg, Wikipedia, medical websites) and PubMed (1.87 vs. 2.54 mean links, P=.0004). CONCLUSION: Google is an efficient web resource for identifying specific medical information, by guiding users to an array of medical resources.
Authors: Amol K Narang; Edwin Lam; Martin A Makary; Theodore L Deweese; Timothy M Pawlik; Peter J Pronovost; Joseph M Herman Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2013-01 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Claire F Snyder; Albert W Wu; Robert S Miller; Roxanne E Jensen; Elissa T Bantug; Antonio C Wolff Journal: Cancer J Date: 2011 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 3.360
Authors: Patrick M Archambault; Tom H van de Belt; Francisco J Grajales; Marjan J Faber; Craig E Kuziemsky; Susie Gagnon; Andrea Bilodeau; Simon Rioux; Willianne L D M Nelen; Marie-Pierre Gagnon; Alexis F Turgeon; Karine Aubin; Irving Gold; Julien Poitras; Gunther Eysenbach; Jan A M Kremer; France Légaré Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2013-10-08 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Mark T Corkum; Wei Liu; David A Palma; Glenn S Bauman; Robert E Dinniwell; Andrew Warner; Mark V Mishra; Alexander V Louie Journal: Radiat Oncol Date: 2018-03-15 Impact factor: 3.481