Tampilkan postingan dengan label google. Tampilkan semua postingan
Tampilkan postingan dengan label google. Tampilkan semua postingan

1 in 20 Americans are misdiagnosed every year

| 0 komentar |
Really?

A paper published in April found that about 12 million Americans, or 5% of adults in this country, are being misdiagnosed every year. This news exploded all over Twitter. Anxious reports from media outlets such as NBC News, CBS News, the Boston Globe, and others fanned the flames.

The paper involves a fair amount of extrapolation and estimation reminiscent of the "440,000 deaths per year caused by medical error" study from last year.

Data from the authors prior published works involving 81,000 patients and 212,000 doctor visits yielded about 1600 records for analysis.

A misdiagnosis was determined by either an unplanned hospitalization (trigger 1) or a primary care physician revisit within 14 days of an index visit (trigger 2).

A quote from the paper [Emphasis added] : For trigger 1, 141 errors were found in 674 visits reviewed, yielding an error rate of 20.9%. Extrapolating to all 1086 trigger 1 visits yielded an estimate of 227.2 errors. For trigger 2, 36 errors were found in 669 visits reviewed, yielding an error rate of 5.4%. Extrapolating to all 14,777 trigger 2 visits yielded an estimate of 795.2 errors. Finally, for the control visits, 13 errors were found in 614 visits reviewed, yielding an error rate of 2.1%. Extrapolating to all 193,810 control visits yielded an estimate of 4,103.5 errors. Thus, we estimated that 5126 errors would have occurred across the three groups. We then divided this figure by the number of unique primary care patients in the initial cohort (81,483) and arrived at an estimated error rate of 6.29%. Because approximately 80.5% of US adults seek outpatient care annually, the same rate when applied to all US adults gives an estimate of 5.06%.
The diagnoses that were missed and the implications of the misses were not described, but one anecdote from a paper the study was based on mentioned carpal tunnel syndrome as one of the diagnoses.

Another quote from the paper: Although it is unknown how many patients will be harmed from diagnostic errors, our previous work suggests that about one-half of diagnostic errors have the potential to lead to severe harm. While this is only an estimate and does not imply all those affected will actually have harm, this risk potentially translates to about 6 million outpatients per year. [Emphasis mine]

Is a 14-day interval between the supposed miss of the diagnosis and an admission or a return visit really a huge problem?

Because we dont really know how many patients were actually harmed by these supposed diagnostic errors, we cant tell. If carpal tunnel syndrome was the delayed diagnosis, Id say "probably not."

Half of the patients in the study were from a VA and the other half were from a large clinic cohort so these diagnostic error rates may not be generalizable to the entire population of the US.

The words "misdiagnosis" and "error" were used interchangeably. As the authors admit, every misdiagnosis is not necessarily the result of a physicians error.

Among the limitations of the study noted in the paper [but omitted from all news reports] was that it was not designed to identify the root cause of the delayed care or missed diagnosis. For example, reviewers noted many cases where delays in follow-up were beyond the control of primary care providers, such as difficulty obtaining timely appointments with specialists [which we now know is a huge problem at many VA hospitals], or patients failing to show up at scheduled appointments.

No doubt diagnostic errors occur, but this paper does not tell us how many people were seriously harmed, what the root causes of the errors were, who was responsible for the errors, or most importantly whether diagnostic errors really occur in 5% of Americans.


Read More..

Google v Squidoo and Hubpages

| 0 komentar |
Matt Cutts, Google guru, has declared war on content farms.  It is a long war, involving a lot of algorithm tweaking.

The idea being to reduce the power of the content farm when compared to genuine content written for the purpose of it being there, rather than a quick buck.

The graph below shows the last few months of Hubpages v Squidoo traffic as measured by Quantcast.  HubPages is the one at the bottom.

There is a clear decline in HP traffic, and a corresponding rise in Squidoo.  It is as if turning down the dial on HubPages simply increased the views to Squidoo.  Im not a fan of Squidoo but that cant be what Google wanted.

The two sites are very similar.  Content written for marketing - either adsense or affiliate.  To me, Squidoo looks spammier but its a choice thing.

Heres the graph...


Quantcast graph showing HubPages v Squidoo traffic comparison


You can see the divergence in traffic around July, gathering pace in late September where HubPages took quite a knock.  As HP goes down then Squidoo rises.  All that traffic had to go somewhere, but it doesnt look like it went to individual sites.

Google just took it from HP and gave it to Squidoo.

I wonder if the Squidoo drop at the beginning of November is the next phase of Googles anti-content farm efforts?  No corresponding rise for HP, so a content farm drop overall.

This has long been promised by Google, the end of the writing sites that specialise in low quality generic material that serves little purpose.  The sites that I have spent my time writing on as it happens.

I havent bothered feeding my blog into Quantcast by the way, it wouldnt even register I should think.

Really, I should stop looking at traffic and just get on with writing.  The trouble is, it is so addictive.

Wouldnt it be nice if Google just set the dial higher on our own content and gave us millions of hits each day?  That really would be worth blogging about.




Read More..

Can You Make Money at HubPages

| 0 komentar |
The writer contemplating his next masterpiece...
Yes, you can make money from HubPages.

But first...

The internet is full of get rich quick claims from scam companies.

Worse that that, there are many bloggers and even reputable news outlets which tell you how good site X is.

They do this for the income from sign-up referrals.

There will be NO sign-up links on this page.  If you want to check out HubPages go and do it.

Google it and have a look.  I will give you my honest opinion based on five years of writing at HubPages.

Of all the places I have tried HubPages is still the most profitable, easy and ongoing place for me.  I run blogs, including this one, my own sites and recently affiliate marketing via CafePress and Zazzle.

It is HubPages which still gives me a dollar or so each and every day.

A dollar!

A miserable dollar you say, wondering if I have lost my senses.

The truth about internet writing and passive income is that few people earn as much as a dollar.  So I am doing quite well thank you very much.  Oh sure, I still have hopes of earning a proper living from my brilliant writing but they are the same hopes as when I started.

Very few people make any money.  Surprisingly, a huge number of them have an ego that makes them think they will.  That is where the scam companies come in.  They sell ridiculous dreams for sign-up and subscription fees and instead of even a dollar the would-be writer gets ripped off.

HubPages is an honest old-fashioned content farm.  They would prefer to be called a user-generated content site - whatever.  People write pages using the excellent FREE software HubPages provide and they share in any profits from advertising or Amazon / Ebay sales.

They pay out when you get to fifty dollars so I get a PayPal payment monthly during a good period.  Fifty dollars sounds a little better than the daily rate.

As a top-up to a pension, a minor savings plan or paying occasional bills that kind of income can help.  The cents and dollars mount up.  It is not a real income to replace a normal job.

That is the reality of the writing game.  HubPages is reasonably open and honest about it and they pay promptly and reliably.  You retain the rights to your content, can come and go as you please and as a no-risk no-investment introduction to the internet writing game it is one of the best.

A hobby that pays a little money at a time when interest rates are so low and money is tight?  If you enjoy writing and have something to say or share then HubPages might be worth a look.
Read More..

Can Google Glass make you a better surgeon

| 0 komentar |
Advocates of Google Glass in surgery are apparently desperate to find some use for the device.

An article headlined "Google Glass makes doctors better surgeons, Stanford study shows" concluded that the study offered "compelling preliminary evidence that the head-mounted display can be used in a clinical setting to enhance situational awareness and patient safety."

Using an app capable of displaying vital signs on Google Glass in real time, 7 surgical residents recognized critical desaturation in simulated patients having procedures under conscious sedation 8.8 seconds faster than a control group of 7 residents relying on standard monitors. Glass-wearing residents also became aware of hypotension 10.5 seconds before the control group.

Not mentioned in the article but present in a linked abstract of the paper not yet submitted for peer review was this pearlneither difference was statistically significant.

This evidence is not that convincing. Even if the difference had been statistically significant, it is surely not clinically important.

How seeing vital signs on Google Glass is better than relying on the simple alarms that are built in to every monitor is not clear. Either way, you must stop the operation and look up to see the vital signs.

In a brief video accompanying the article, a surgeon can be seen rather clumsily activating and resetting the app on his Google Glass. The time required to perform these maneuvers apparently was not discussed.

The article, probably written directly from a press release, took a comedic turn with this sentence, "One test demanded that the resident perform a bronchoscopy, in which the surgeon makes an incision in the patient’s throat to access a blocked airway." But bronchoscopy does not involve making an incision in the throat or anywhere else.

If you would like to hear a different side of the Google Glass story, check out this video review from GeekBeatTV entitled "Google Glass is the worst product of all time." You can forward to the 3:45 mark to get past the woes of wearing prescription glasses with Google Glass and hear about the poor battery life, the balky commands, the system crashes, and more.
Read More..