This post is the start of a very interesting series by Laika’s MedLibLog. She is a medical information specialist with experience in both evidence based medicine (EBM) and web 2.0. She uses her experience with both to integrate these two forms of science. In her first post there are some striking examples of EBM and it’s merits. The use of antenatale corticosteroids given to women about to give birth too early and the use of corticosteroids to lower intracranial pressure after serious head injury.
I’m feeling like I’m in a split, with one leg in EBM and the other in web 2.0. In my view each has got his merits, and these approaches should not oppose each other but should mingle. EBM getting a lower threshold and becoming more digestible and practical, and medicine 2.0 becoming less superficial and more underpinned.
It is my goal to take an upright position, standing on both legs, integrating EBM, medicine 2.0 (as well as medicine 1.0).
As a first step I will discuss some discrepancies between the two views as I encounter it in blogs, in the form of a mini-series: “The Web 2.0-EBM Medicine split”.
Before I do so I will give a short list of what I consider characteristic for each type of medicine, EBM-, Web 1.0 (usual)- and Web 2.0- medicine. Not based on any evidence, only on experience and intuition. I’ve just written down what came to my mind. I would be very interested in your thoughts on this.