Now:Main - Revision history

Neil.m.young: Text replacement - "don't" to "do not"

2016-07-11T22:44:15Z

Text replacement - "don't" to "do not"

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:44, 11 July 2016
Line 4:		Line 4:
	However, in all of these, a select (small) group of people give their opinion and there are always concerns about the impartiality of these select journal and text writers or those on the committees. Cochran, the NNT, and other such lit reviewers are perhaps less biased, but are similar in that a small select group (or sometimes just an individual) is telling everyone else what to do. This approach is top down and very last century, although still the predominant model.		However, in all of these, a select (small) group of people give their opinion and there are always concerns about the impartiality of these select journal and text writers or those on the committees. Cochran, the NNT, and other such lit reviewers are perhaps less biased, but are similar in that a small select group (or sometimes just an individual) is telling everyone else what to do. This approach is top down and very last century, although still the predominant model.

	For web 2.0+, you can add in the blogs and social media, which function like the journal articles of prior, accept have more people contributing than could be found in the journals. These sites ~~don't~~ have to get "peer reviewed," so it is more democratic. However, this approach causes more chaos and it is hard to say what is the majority (as opposed to the loudest) opinion. These sites also provide little utility in the search for quick management decisions.		For web 2.0+, you can add in the blogs and social media, which function like the journal articles of prior, accept have more people contributing than could be found in the journals. These sites do not have to get "peer reviewed," so it is more democratic. However, this approach causes more chaos and it is hard to say what is the majority (as opposed to the loudest) opinion. These sites also provide little utility in the search for quick management decisions.

	Wikipedia has another method, in that they want to come to a page that is neutral with both opinions (e.g. the Israli-Palistinian Conflict). However, many doctors come to WikEM because they want a usable answer "now," not a several page discussion of the literature (although it is good to also have that also available). It is nice to know, when you are alone in your ED, what your colleagues reading the same information would do (i.e. WikEM-Now).		Wikipedia has another method, in that they want to come to a page that is neutral with both opinions (e.g. the Israli-Palistinian Conflict). However, many doctors come to WikEM because they want a usable answer "now," not a several page discussion of the literature (although it is good to also have that also available). It is nice to know, when you are alone in your ED, what your colleagues reading the same information would do (i.e. WikEM-Now).

Rossdonaldson1: /* WikEM-Now */

2015-03-10T01:49:09Z

WikEM-Now

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:49, 10 March 2015
Line 18:		Line 18:
	*Then, all WikEM users will have the opportunity to read the Lit Review and vote on which option they will choose in practice, based on the current evidence. We will be sending out a notice of the vote via our blog/apps and there will be one vote per WikEM username.		*Then, all WikEM users will have the opportunity to read the Lit Review and vote on which option they will choose in practice, based on the current evidence. We will be sending out a notice of the vote via our blog/apps and there will be one vote per WikEM username.
	*Once we have a winner, in addition to sending out the result on the blog/app, we will then highlight the winning opinion (with total votes and percentage of vote for each option) at the top of the Lit Review page (the "take home message," similar in format as done in Annals of EM lit review articles). This option will also be the first one used/highlighted in the related clinical note, with a link to the relevant WikEM-Now page.		*Once we have a winner, in addition to sending out the result on the blog/app, we will then highlight the winning opinion (with total votes and percentage of vote for each option) at the top of the Lit Review page (the "take home message," similar in format as done in Annals of EM lit review articles). This option will also be the first one used/highlighted in the related clinical note, with a link to the relevant WikEM-Now page.

			{{WikEM now rules}}

	==Potential Topics==		==Potential Topics==

Rossdonaldson1: /* WikEM-Now */

2015-02-11T02:25:21Z

WikEM-Now

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:25, 11 February 2015
Line 9:		Line 9:

	==WikEM-Now==		==WikEM-Now==
	~~The~~ WikEM-Now will attempt to turn the guideline world upside down with a new, collaborative way of developing concrete management guidelines. It will be the first time that the majority of ~~EM doctors~~ get to vote/contribute to their own guidelines.		WikEM-Now will attempt to turn the guideline world upside down with a new, collaborative way of developing concrete management guidelines. It will be the first time that the majority of emergency medicine pracitioners get to vote/contribute to their own guidelines.

	The plan is to:		The plan is to:
			*Identify/flag [[Now:Suggest a Topic\|controversial issues]]
	*Identify/flag controversial issues ~~(see example list below)~~
	*Have as many contributors as interested make an "Evidence Based Lit Review" page for the clinical question on WikEM		*Have as many contributors as interested make an "Evidence Based Lit Review" page for the clinical question on WikEM
	**the page should have both pro and con argument		**the page should have both pro and con argument
	**the page should be neutral (the "Wikipedia goal")		**the page should be neutral (the "Wikipedia goal")
	*Then, all WikEM users will have the opportunity to read the Lit Review and vote on which option they will choose in practice, based on the current evidence. We will be sending out a notice of the vote via our blog/apps and there will be one vote per WikEM username.		*Then, all WikEM users will have the opportunity to read the Lit Review and vote on which option they will choose in practice, based on the current evidence. We will be sending out a notice of the vote via our blog/apps and there will be one vote per WikEM username.
	*Once we have a winner, in addition to sending out the result on the blog/app, we will then highlight the winning opinion (with total votes and percentage of vote for each option) at the top of the Lit Review page (the "take home message," similar in format as done in Annals of EM lit review articles). This option will also be the first one used/highlighted in the related clinical note, with a link to the relevant WikEM ~~Standard~~ page.		*Once we have a winner, in addition to sending out the result on the blog/app, we will then highlight the winning opinion (with total votes and percentage of vote for each option) at the top of the Lit Review page (the "take home message," similar in format as done in Annals of EM lit review articles). This option will also be the first one used/highlighted in the related clinical note, with a link to the relevant WikEM-Now page.

	==Potential Topics==		==Potential Topics==

Rossdonaldson1: /* Background */

2015-02-11T02:23:46Z

Background

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:23, 11 February 2015
Line 1:		Line 1:
	==Background==		==Background==
	This is the main page for a new WikEM piloting a new section, called '''WikEM-Now'''. Frequently, there are legitimate disagreements about what it the best management of a particular problem based on available literature. The way such debate traditionally (and mostly still) works is that there are articles back in forth in journals and then (maybe) standard textbooks give their opinion or a medical society comes up with some guideline. However, in all of these, a select (small) group of people give their opinion and there are always concerns about the impartiality of these select journal and text writers or those on the committees. Cochran, the NNT, and other such lit reviewers are perhaps less biased, but are similar in that a small select group (or sometimes just an individual) is telling everyone else what to do. This approach is top down and very last century, although still the predominant model.		This is the main page for a new WikEM piloting a new section, called '''WikEM-Now'''. Frequently, there are legitimate disagreements about what it the best management of a particular problem based on available literature. The way such debate traditionally (and mostly still) works is that there are articles back in forth in journals and then (maybe) standard textbooks give their opinion or a medical society comes up with some guideline.

			However, in all of these, a select (small) group of people give their opinion and there are always concerns about the impartiality of these select journal and text writers or those on the committees. Cochran, the NNT, and other such lit reviewers are perhaps less biased, but are similar in that a small select group (or sometimes just an individual) is telling everyone else what to do. This approach is top down and very last century, although still the predominant model.

	For web 2.0+, you can add in the blogs and social media, which function like the journal articles of prior, accept have more people contributing than could be found in the journals. These sites don't have to get "peer reviewed," so it is more democratic. However, this approach causes more chaos and it is hard to say what is the majority (as opposed to the loudest) opinion. These sites also provide little utility in the search for quick management decisions.		For web 2.0+, you can add in the blogs and social media, which function like the journal articles of prior, accept have more people contributing than could be found in the journals. These sites don't have to get "peer reviewed," so it is more democratic. However, this approach causes more chaos and it is hard to say what is the majority (as opposed to the loudest) opinion. These sites also provide little utility in the search for quick management decisions.

	Wikipedia has another method, in that they want to come to a page that is neutral with both opinions (e.g. the Israli-Palistinian Conflict). However, many doctors come to WikEM because they want a usable answer "now," not a several page discussion of the literature (although it is good to also have that also available). It is nice to know, when you are alone in your ED, what your colleagues reading the same information would do (i.e. ~~the Standard of Care~~).		Wikipedia has another method, in that they want to come to a page that is neutral with both opinions (e.g. the Israli-Palistinian Conflict). However, many doctors come to WikEM because they want a usable answer "now," not a several page discussion of the literature (although it is good to also have that also available). It is nice to know, when you are alone in your ED, what your colleagues reading the same information would do (i.e. WikEM-Now).

	==WikEM-Now==		==WikEM-Now==

Rossdonaldson1 at 02:21, 11 February 2015

2015-02-11T02:21:58Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:21, 11 February 2015
Line 19:		Line 19:

	==Potential Topics==		==Potential Topics==
			*See [[Now:Suggest a Topic]]

			[[Category:WikEM]]

Rossdonaldson1: Created page with "==Background== This is the main page for a new WikEM piloting a new section, called '''WikEM-Now'''. Frequently, there are legitimate disagreements about what it the best man..."

2015-02-11T02:20:41Z

Created page with "==Background== This is the main page for a new WikEM piloting a new section, called '''WikEM-Now'''. Frequently, there are legitimate disagreements about what it the best man..."

New page

==Background==
This is the main page for a new WikEM piloting a new section, called '''WikEM-Now'''. Frequently, there are legitimate disagreements about what it the best management of a particular problem based on available literature. The way such debate traditionally (and mostly still) works is that there are articles back in forth in journals and then (maybe) standard textbooks give their opinion or a medical society comes up with some guideline. However, in all of these, a select (small) group of people give their opinion and there are always concerns about the impartiality of these select journal and text writers or those on the committees. Cochran, the NNT, and other such lit reviewers are perhaps less biased, but are similar in that a small select group (or sometimes just an individual) is telling everyone else what to do. This approach is top down and very last century, although still the predominant model.

For web 2.0+, you can add in the blogs and social media, which function like the journal articles of prior, accept have more people contributing than could be found in the journals. These sites don't have to get "peer reviewed," so it is more democratic. However, this approach causes more chaos and it is hard to say what is the majority (as opposed to the loudest) opinion. These sites also provide little utility in the search for quick management decisions.

Wikipedia has another method, in that they want to come to a page that is neutral with both opinions (e.g. the Israli-Palistinian Conflict). However, many doctors come to WikEM because they want a usable answer "now," not a several page discussion of the literature (although it is good to also have that also available). It is nice to know, when you are alone in your ED, what your colleagues reading the same information would do (i.e. the Standard of Care).

==WikEM-Now==
The WikEM-Now will attempt to turn the guideline world upside down with a new, collaborative way of developing concrete management guidelines. It will be the first time that the majority of EM doctors get to vote/contribute to their own guidelines.

The plan is to:

*Identify/flag controversial issues (see example list below)
*Have as many contributors as interested make an "Evidence Based Lit Review" page for the clinical question on WikEM
**the page should have both pro and con argument
**the page should be neutral (the "Wikipedia goal")
*Then, all WikEM users will have the opportunity to read the Lit Review and vote on which option they will choose in practice, based on the current evidence. We will be sending out a notice of the vote via our blog/apps and there will be one vote per WikEM username.
*Once we have a winner, in addition to sending out the result on the blog/app, we will then highlight the winning opinion (with total votes and percentage of vote for each option) at the top of the Lit Review page (the "take home message," similar in format as done in Annals of EM lit review articles). This option will also be the first one used/highlighted in the related clinical note, with a link to the relevant WikEM Standard page.

==Potential Topics==