What would a “good” WebMD look like?

Re:What would a “good” WebMD look like? by strstr on Tuesday August 30, 2022 @09:08PM (#32657166)

A better WebMD already exists, and it’s called UpToDate. It’s target audience is doctors, but you can pay ~$20 for a week as a consumer (you can pay less per week for longer also). It’s a great resource, and has a summary of the most recent consensus view on common medical topics. It doesn’t expand pages out with fluff or talk down to you, though it won’t have too much info about assumed medical fundamentals. You can pull the citations and look up the references.

Reading it makes your appreciate why WebMD exists. Not everyone wants to read highly technical medical jargon and read medical papers. But the HN audience probably has a lot of folks that are down to do that, and I strongly recommend UpToDate for those that do. I use almost every time I have a substantial new issue that requires a physician visit.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:What would a “good” WebMD look like? by blandry on Wednesday August 31, 2022 @11:17AM (#32663235)

I can give a nice example of how some of UpToDate’s information is compiled, and why its so high quality.

I built a new diagnostic test that replaced and upgraded upon one that had previously been discontinued. After building it a clinician who is a top expert on that specific diagnostic reached out since he was responsible for the relevant up to date page. We had a knowledgeable discussion and they gained a full understanding of the diagnostic I had built. After that they wrote up a new and high quality UpToDate piece describing the new diagnostic and its clinical usefulness. Overall it felt like a very effective process, and one that happened pretty early on in the life cycle of the new product.

[ Parent | on HN ]