This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

John Mack, MS, MPhil
VirSci Corporation Levittown, Pa

JAMA. 1997;278(8):632.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

To the Editor.

—I applaud the recognition by JAMA of the problem facing patients and medical professionals alike when assessing the quality of medical information on the Internet (Net).¹ As a moderator of several e-mail medical discussion groups, I have firsthand knowledge of the good, the bad, and the ugly that is medical publishing on the Net. It is not always easy, even for professionals, to know what is credible medical information on the Net and what is not. Of course, physicians could access only the mainstream publications and government sites, but the information may not be fresh, considering the lengthy peer review and political processes that may be involved. After all, one of the main reasons to use the Internet is to find other sources of up-to-date information. For example, physicians might like to get independent reviews of presentations made at medical meetings the same day as the . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?