<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
<!-- generator="FeedCreator 1.7.2" -->
<rss version="2.0">
    <channel>
        <title>MedWorm Tags: british medical</title>
        <description>MedWorm provides a medical RSS filtering service. Over 6000 RSS medical sources are combined and output via different filters. This feed contains the latest medical blog items that have been tagged with 'british medical'.</description>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.medworm.com/rss/search.php?qu=%22british+medical%22&t=%22british+medical%22&r=Exact&o=d&f=tag]]></link>
        <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Sep 2011 02:15:28 +0100</lastBuildDate>
        <item>
            <title>Do You Really Need 6-8 Glasses Of Water Each Day?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=5130745&amp;cid=t_215271_87_f&amp;fid=39187&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fgetbetterhealth.com%2Fdo-you-really-need-6-8-glasses-of-water-each-day%2F2011.08.15</link>
            <description>“Bueno es saber que los vasos
nos sirven para beber;
lo malo es que no sabemos
para qué sirve la sed”.
 Proverbios y cantares.XLI. Antonio Machado
(‘It’s good to know that glasses
are what can help us drink;
The trouble is, we don’t know
What is the purpose of thirst’)
The one thing you can’t afford to have missing when you start a scientific congress or any other professional meeting is not a notepad, a pencil or even an iPad – nowadays, it’s a bottle of water. Offices, airports, handbags and lecture halls, all of them are bursting with all kinds of bottles. It seems they are essential to work and even to stay alive.
Bordering nonsense, some people desperately search for a bottled water vending machine as soon as they arrive at the airport, even if that means gobbling i...</description>
            <author>Better Health</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=5130745</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 15 Aug 2011 18:00:20 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">5130745</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Why it's unethical for doctors not to have their own website</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4704733&amp;cid=t_215271_112_f&amp;fid=34971&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.drmalpani.com%2F2011%2F04%2Fwhy-its-unethical-for-doctors-not-to.html</link>
            <description>Many doctors are still worried that it's unethical to have a personal website.They feel that this amounts to advertising, and that a website is a way of soliciting patients.I strongly disagree. In fact, I feel it's unethical for a doctor not to have their own website ! The word doctor is derived from the word, &quot; docere&quot;, which means to teach. This clearly means that one of the key responsibilities of a doctor is to teach their patients. While many doctors do this face to face, the amount of teaching which can be done this way is very limited - and a conversation is not the best way of transmitting information.Doctors who publish their own websites communicate with their patients online - and a website is a much more powerful tool of reaching out to thousands of people who are looking for i...</description>
            <author>The Patient's Doctor</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4704733</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 13 Apr 2011 02:38:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4704733</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>The Salzburg Statement: Patients Must Be Involved In Healthcare Decisions</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4658385&amp;cid=t_215271_87_f&amp;fid=39187&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fgetbetterhealth.com%2Fthe-salzberg-statement-patients-must-be-involved-in-healthcare-decisions%2F2011.03.30</link>
            <description>Last Thursday at the headquarters of the British Medical Journal in London, an important announcement will be made about patients’ rights to be actively involved in decisions about their treatment. Below is the press release about it.
The subject is shared decision making, which we’ve been posting about recently (series here; initial post here.) Developed by the participants in a Salzburg Global Seminar last December, the document is called the Salzburg Statement. The pivotal distinction here is the difference between informed consent, in which the physician assesses the options and selects one, and gets your consent to do it; and informed choice, in which clinicians tell you the options, with all the pros and cons, and let you choose, based on your preferences.
Click the image to do...</description>
            <author>Better Health</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4658385</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 30 Mar 2011 11:00:46 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4658385</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>My doctor does not tell me anything - Dr Malpani talks about the commonest patient complaints have</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4554661&amp;cid=t_215271_112_f&amp;fid=34971&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdoctorandpatient.blogspot.com%2F2011%2F03%2Fmy-doctor-does-not-tell-me-anything-dr.html</link>
            <description>&quot; My doctor never has time to talk to me or to explain to me what is happening !&quot; This is the commonest complaint patients have about their doctors.It's true that doctors are busy - and good doctors are in high demand, with enormous patient loads. Their time is precious - and the reality is that they do not have the luxury of sitting down and chatting with you.However, there's no point in looking for problems - you need to find solutions ! You cannot change the constraints your doctor operates under - but there's a lot you can do to make the most of the limited time you have with him !What are some useful strategies ?1. Remember that your doctor is no longer the only dispenser of reliable medical information. This was true 50 years ago, when doctors had a monopoly on access to medical know...</description>
            <author>The Patient's Doctor</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4554661</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 07 Mar 2011 05:39:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4554661</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>It’s Time To Tango: Impatient With Progress On Patient-Physician Partnership</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4540564&amp;cid=t_215271_87_f&amp;fid=39187&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fgetbetterhealth.com%2Fit%25e2%2580%2599s-time-to-tango-impatient-with-progress-on-patient-physician-partnership%2F2011.03.02</link>
            <description>The other day I came across this photo of a couple clasping each other in a dramatic tango on the cover of an old medical journal &amp;#8211; a special issue from 1999 that was focused entirely on doctor-patient partnership. The tone and subjects of the articles, letters and editorials were identical to those written today on the topic: “It’s time for the paternalism of the relationship between doctors and patients to be transformed into a partnership;” “There are benefits to this change and dangers to maintaining the status quo;” “Some doctors and patients resist the change and some embrace it: Why?”
Two questions struck me as I impatiently scanned the articles from 12 years ago: First, why are these articles about doctor-patient partnership still so relevant? And second, why ...</description>
            <author>Better Health</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4540564</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 02 Mar 2011 22:00:43 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4540564</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Why Negative Medical Studies Are Good</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4495202&amp;cid=t_215271_87_f&amp;fid=39187&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fgetbetterhealth.com%2Fwhy-negative-medical-studies-are-good%2F2011.02.18</link>
            <description>This is a guest column by Ivan Oransky, M.D., who is executive editor of Reuters Health and blogs at Embargo Watch and Retraction Watch. 
One of the things that makes evaluating medical evidence difficult is knowing whether what&amp;#8217;s being published actually reflects reality. Are the studies we read a good representation of scientific truth, or are they full of cherry-picked data that help sell drugs or skew policy decisions?
That question may sound like that of a paranoiac, but rest assured, it&amp;#8217;s not. Researchers have worried about a &amp;#8220;positive publication bias&amp;#8221; for decades. The idea is that studies showing an effect of a particular drug or procedure are more likely to be published. In 2008, for example, a group of researchers published a New England Journal of Medicin...</description>
            <author>Better Health</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4495202</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 18 Feb 2011 22:20:24 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4495202</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>When Money Isn’t Everything To Doctors</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4414521&amp;cid=t_215271_87_f&amp;fid=39187&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fgetbetterhealth.com%2Fwhen-money-isnt-everything-to-doctors%2F2011.01.29</link>
            <description>I recently pointed to a BMJ study concluding that pay for performance doesn’t seem to motivate doctors. It has been picking up steam in major media with TIME, for instance, saying: “Money isn’t everything, even to doctors.”
So much is riding on the concept of pay for performance, that it’s hard to fathom what other options there are should it fail. And there’s mounting evidence that it will.
Dr. Aaron Carroll, a pediatrician at the University of Indiana, and regular contributor to KevinMD.com, ponders the options. First he comments on why the performance incentives in the NHS failed:
Perhaps the doctors were already improving without the program. If that’s the case, though, then you don’t need economic incentives. It’s possible the incentives were too low. But I don’t...</description>
            <author>Better Health</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4414521</comments>
            <pubDate>Sat, 29 Jan 2011 17:00:01 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4414521</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>What an expert patient can teach an expert doctor !</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4399631&amp;cid=t_215271_112_f&amp;fid=34971&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdoctorandpatient.blogspot.com%2F2011%2F01%2Fwhat-expert-patient-can-teach-expert.html</link>
            <description>I am an IVF specialist, and know lots about IVF. I read all the medical journals and keep myself updated, so I can provide high quality medical care to my patients - after all, my professional knowledgebase is my major asset and I spend a lot of time on polishing my skills and keeping current with recent advances. Since IVF is such a specialised field, it's much easier for me to do so, as compared to a general physician, for example, who has a much broader area to cover.However, no matter how good my intentions, the fact still remains that there will be areas in IVF in which I have blind spots. The good news is that my patients are getting smarter and are happy to help me fill in these blind spots. I have always respected my patients and I learn a lot from them all the time.Medicine is a r...</description>
            <author>The Patient's Doctor</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4399631</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 26 Jan 2011 04:24:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4399631</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>The Peddling Of Genetic Tests</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4386271&amp;cid=t_215271_87_f&amp;fid=39187&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fgetbetterhealth.com%2Fthe-peddling-of-genetic-tests%2F2011.01.22</link>
            <description>In a recent issue of the British Medical Journal (BMJ), journalist Ray Moynihan wrote: &amp;#8220;Beware the fortune tellers peddling genetic tests.&amp;#8221; (Subscription required for full access.) Excerpts:
&amp;#8220;For anyone concerned about the creeping medicalisation of life, the marketplace for genetic testing is surely one of the latest frontiers, where apparently harmless technology can help mutate healthy people into fearful patients, their personhood redefined by multiple genetic predispositions for disease and early death.
&amp;#8230;
Again a tool that&amp;#8217;s proved useful in the laboratory has escaped like a virus into the marketplace, incubated by entrepreneurs, lazy reporters, and the power of our collective dreams of technological salvation, this time in the form of personalised medici...</description>
            <author>Better Health</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4386271</comments>
            <pubDate>Sat, 22 Jan 2011 23:00:22 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4386271</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>The Autism-Vaccine Fraud: The Difference One Journalist Can Make</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4318334&amp;cid=t_215271_87_f&amp;fid=39187&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fgetbetterhealth.com%2Fthe-autism-vaccine-fraud-the-difference-one-journalist-can-make%2F2011.01.06</link>
            <description>The BMJ&amp;#8217;s statement this week that the 1998 article by Andrew Wakefield and 12 others &amp;#8220;linking MMR vaccine and autism was fraudulent&amp;#8221; demonstrates what a difference one journalist can make. Journalist Brian Deer played a key role in uncovering and dismantling the Wakefield story.
(Of course, others recently have said something similar about The Daily Show comedian Jon Stewart&amp;#8217;s role in focusing on the health problems of 9/11 first responders.)
CNN&amp;#8217;s Anderson Cooper had a segment worth watching, including a new interview Cooper conducted with Wakefield via Skype:

Unfortunately, journalism played a key role in promoting Wakefield&amp;#8217;s claims. The &amp;#8220;Respectful Insolence&amp;#8221; blog referred to one journalist as &amp;#8220;CBS&amp;#8217; resident anti-vaccine pro...</description>
            <author>Better Health</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4318334</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 06 Jan 2011 16:00:16 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4318334</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Psych Central by the Numbers, 2010</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4302886&amp;cid=t_215271_109_f&amp;fid=34750&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fpsychcentral.com%2Fblog%2Farchives%2F2011%2F01%2F01%2Fpsych-central-by-the-numbers-2010%2F</link>
            <description>In October 2010, according to comScore Media Metrix, Psych Central had 820,000 unique U.S. visitors to the site, and in November 2010, we had 933,000 visitors. That puts us in the top 50 most-visited of all health websites on the Internet today &amp;#8212; a first for us! 
Combined with our international audience, Google Analytics tells us we reach over 1.5 million unique visitors each and every month. Astounding, considering our humble beginnings of indexing other psychology and mental health resources online 15 years ago. 
To put this in some context, more people visit Psych Central every month than any one of these sites:

The American Cancer Society

The American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association combined

The American Medical Association

The American Diab...</description>
            <author>World of Psychology</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4302886</comments>
            <pubDate>Sat, 01 Jan 2011 23:00:52 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4302886</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Integrative Medicine As The Butt Of A Hoax</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4265742&amp;cid=t_215271_87_f&amp;fid=39187&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fgetbetterhealth.com%2Fintegrative-medicine-as-the-butt-of-a-hoax%2F2010.12.16</link>
            <description>In 1996, Alan Sokal got a bogus paper published in the journal Social Text. It was a parody full of meaningless statements in the jargon of postmodern philosophy and cultural studies. The editors couldn’t tell the difference between Sokal’s nonsense and the usual articles they publish.
Now a British professor of medical education, Dr. John McLachlan, has perpetrated a similar hoax on supporters of so-called “integrative” medicine. He reports his prank in an article in the British Medical Journal (BMJ).

After receiving an invitation to submit papers to an International Conference on Integrative Medicine, he invented a ridiculous story about a new form of reflexology and acupuncture with points represented by a homunculus map on the buttocks. He claimed to have done studies showing ...</description>
            <author>Better Health</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4265742</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 16 Dec 2010 17:00:20 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4265742</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Patientology - the new science of medical practise</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4205982&amp;cid=t_215271_112_f&amp;fid=34971&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdoctorandpatient.blogspot.com%2F2010%2F11%2Fpatientology-new-science-of-medical.html</link>
            <description>Patientology is the study of patients - and this is a core skill which all doctors need to learn, even though there is no textbook or syllabus for this !One way all doctors can become better patientologists is by teaching their patients how to become better patients ! Good patients make for good doctors - and it's possible to provide patients with a toolbox of skills which they can learn to help themselves.These tools include teaching patients :how to keep good medical recordshow to talk to doctorshow to ask questionshow to do their homeworkhow to take care of themselves when they are in hospital (Source: The Patient's Doctor)</description>
            <author>The Patient's Doctor</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4205982</comments>
            <pubDate>Sat, 27 Nov 2010 03:48:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4205982</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>The “Lies” Of Medical Science: What’s An e-Patient To Do?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4105668&amp;cid=t_215271_87_f&amp;fid=39187&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fgetbetterhealth.com%2Fthe-lies-of-medical-science-whats-an-e-patient-to-do%2F2010.10.25</link>
            <description>There’s an extraordinary new article in The Atlantic entitled “Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science.” It echos an excellent article in our Journal of Participatory Medicine (JoPM) a year ago by Richard W. Smith, 25-year editor of the British Medical Journal, entitled &amp;#8221;In Search Of an Optimal Peer Review System.&amp;#8221;
JoPM, Oct 21, 2009: “….most of what appears in peer-reviewed journals is scientifically weak.”
The Atlantic, Oct. 16, 2010: “Much of what medical researchers conclude in their studies is misleading, exaggerated, or flat-out wrong.”
JoPM 2009: “Yet peer review remains sacred, worshiped by scientists and central to the processes of science — awarding grants, publishing, and dishing out prizes.”
The Atlantic 2010: “So why are doctors &amp;#8212; to...</description>
            <author>Better Health</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4105668</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 25 Oct 2010 16:00:09 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4105668</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>British Surgeon James Johnson’s Behavior and Character Questioned By Authorities</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3993795&amp;cid=t_215271_83_f&amp;fid=34856&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Finsidesurgery.com%2F2010%2F09%2Fbritish-surgeon-james-johnsons-behavior-character-questioned-authorities%2F</link>
            <description>Former head of the British Medical Association James Johnson has been described in very unflattering terms by some British medical authorities. (Source: Inside Surgery)</description>
            <author>Inside Surgery</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3993795</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 21 Sep 2010 20:53:33 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3993795</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Miscarriage? Don’t Wait To Get Pregnant Again</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3891668&amp;cid=t_215271_87_f&amp;fid=39187&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fgetbetterhealth.com%2Fmiscarriage-dont-wait-to-get-pregnant-again%2F2010.08.22</link>
            <description>About 15 to 20 percent of women who know they are pregnant will have a miscarriage. The loss of a pregnancy before 20 weeks is considered a miscarriage. Many women suffer grief and shock after a miscarriage and fear there is something wrong with them or that they did something to cause it. But the reasons for miscarriage are usually not known. Women are often told to wait &amp;#8220;a few months&amp;#8221; to get pregnant again to let their bodies recover.
A new study published in the British Medical Journal looked at over 30,000 women who had a miscarriage in their first recorded pregnancy and subsequently became pregnant again. They found that women who conceived again within six months were less likely to have another miscarriage or problem pregnancy. They were even less likely to have a...</description>
            <author>Better Health</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3891668</comments>
            <pubDate>Sun, 22 Aug 2010 18:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3891668</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>WHO And H1N1: Conflict Of Interest?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3671695&amp;cid=t_215271_87_f&amp;fid=39187&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fgetbetterhealth.com%2Fwho-and-h1n1-conflict-of-interest%2F2010.06.17</link>
            <description>On June 11, 2009, Dr. Margaret Chan, the director general of the World Health Organization (WHO), declared that the H1N1 flu that was then spreading around the world was an official pandemic. This triggered a series of built-in responses in many countries, including stockpiling anti-viral medications and preparing for a mass H1N1 vaccination program.
At the time the flu was still in its “first wave” and the fear was that subsequent waves, as the virus swept around the world, would become more virulent and/or contagious –- similar to what happened in the 1918 pandemic. This did not happen. At least our worst fears were not realized. The H1N1 pandemic, while serious, simmered through the winter of 2009-2010, producing a less than average flu season, although with some worrisome differe...</description>
            <author>Better Health</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3671695</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 17 Jun 2010 14:00:41 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3671695</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Too Much Testing And Treatment? Try Superb Primary Care</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3671699&amp;cid=t_215271_87_f&amp;fid=39187&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fgetbetterhealth.com%2Ftoo-much-testing-and-treatment-try-superb-primary-care%2F2010.06.16</link>
            <description>The Associated Press has been running a fantastic series of must reads with the latest article highlighting the consequence of too many imaging studies, like X-rays and CT scans, which are the biggest contributor to an individual&amp;#8217;s total radiation exposure in a lifetime. Americans get more imaging radiation exposure and testing than people from other industrialized countries.
Reasons for doing too many tests include malpractice fear, patient demands for imaging, the difficulty in obtaining imaging results from other doctors or hospitals, as well as advanced technologies, like coronary angioplasty, which have increased radiation but avoid a far more invasive surgery like heart bypass. (more&amp;#8230;)

			
			*This blog post was originally published at Saving Money and Surviving the Heal...</description>
            <author>Better Health</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3671699</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 16 Jun 2010 18:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3671699</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Brush Up On Heart Health</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3614522&amp;cid=t_215271_87_f&amp;fid=39187&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fgetbetterhealth.com%2Fbrush-up-on-heart-health%2F2010.05.30</link>
            <description>The British Medical Journal reported on a study of toothbrushing and found that people with poor oral hygiene had an increased risk of cardiovascular disease and heart attack.
We&amp;#8217;ve known for the last two decades that inflammation plays an important role in atherosclerosis. Markers of low-grade inflammation like C-reactive protein are also shown to be higher in heart disease.
The Scottish Health researchers looked at the general population and followed a large subset with questions about their oral health. They asked about frequency of dentist visits, toothbrushing, and controlled for many co-variables such as general activity, hypertension, smoking, height and weight. They also collected blood for studies of C-reactive protein as a marker of inflammation. They removed from the...</description>
            <author>Better Health</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3614522</comments>
            <pubDate>Sun, 30 May 2010 16:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3614522</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Is “Minimally Disruptive Medicine” An Emerging Field?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3569804&amp;cid=t_215271_87_f&amp;fid=39187&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fgetbetterhealth.com%2Fis-minimally-disruptive-medicine-an-emerging-field%2F2010.05.17</link>
            <description>I recently stumbled onto the &amp;#8220;Minimally Disruptive Medicine&amp;#8221; blog maintained by Dr. Victor Montori from the Mayo Clinic. I have to admit that the name caught my attention so I scoped it out.
According to Dr. Montori, “minimally disruptive medicine refers to the practice of medicine that seeks to design effective treatment programs for patients while minimizing the burden of treatment.”  He describes this as an emerging field.
I have to admit that I was simultaneously puzzled and intrigued. After all, how is this different from the way good medicine is practiced? I, for one, like to think that I create individually-tailored programs that meet my patients&amp;#8217; needs while minimizing their treatment burden. (more&amp;#8230;)

			
			*This blog post was originally published at 3...</description>
            <author>Better Health</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3569804</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 17 May 2010 12:00:42 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3569804</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Happy 14th Birthday, Psych Central!</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2348535&amp;cid=t_215271_109_f&amp;fid=34750&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fpsychcentral.com%2Fblog%2Farchives%2F2009%2F04%2F20%2Fhappy-14th-birthday-psych-central%2F</link>
            <description>So here we are, 14 years later after Psych Central first went online in 1995. And what a great 14 years it&amp;#8217;s been! If you had asked me 14 years ago, &amp;#8220;Hey, John, will this little dinky mental health website still be around 14 years from now?&amp;#8221; I would&amp;#8217;ve guessed &amp;#8220;No.&amp;#8221; Of course, I would&amp;#8217;ve been happily wrong. 
The latest stats out from Media Metrix/Comscore shows that Psych Central reaches as many people each month as the British Medical Journal, the famed Mayo Clinic, and even our friends over at the American Psychological Association. But we&amp;#8217;re not stopping &amp;#8212; we&amp;#8217;re experiencing one of the best growth rates for sites in our niche &amp;#8212; mental health &amp;#038; psychology &amp;#8212; and will continue to provide you with an interesting an...</description>
            <author>World of Psychology</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2348535</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 20 Apr 2009 10:00:51 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2348535</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>What Was JAMA and Catherine DeAngelis Thinking?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2287238&amp;cid=t_215271_109_f&amp;fid=34750&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fpsychcentral.com%2Fblog%2Farchives%2F2009%2F03%2F19%2Fwhat-was-jama-and-catherine-deangelis-thinking%2F</link>
            <description>While I was down in Austin at SXSW this past week, there was a rare glimpse into the big egos that run the journal business in the world. As you may know, publishing research articles is a business, and because it involves prestigious reputations &amp;#8212; both on the journal and academia side &amp;#8212; there is a lot of ego involved. Lots.
So imagine if you&amp;#8217;re sitting at the head of one of the world&amp;#8217;s most prestigious and respected journals, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), and an academic &amp;#8212; not from Harvard or Yale, but from Lincoln Memorial University &amp;#8212; calls you on the carpet for failing to conduct a very good peer-review on a peer-reviewed paper appearing in JAMA:

Jonathan Leo, a professor of neuroanatomy at Lincoln Memorial University, wrot...</description>
            <author>World of Psychology</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2287238</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 19 Mar 2009 14:58:03 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2287238</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>British Medical Journal (BMJ) lies, goes on attack</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2259410&amp;cid=t_215271_122_f&amp;fid=35061&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fneurologyminutiae.blogspot.com%2F2009%2F03%2Fbritish-medical-journal-lies-goes-on.html</link>
            <description>Ordinarily, we do not mix medicine and politics on this site. However, we do believe in academic freedom and honesty, and fear that an attack on any is an attack on the rights of all that will ultimately end badly. While we do hold views on truth in the Middle East conflicts, these thoughts are not germane to this article. Rather, we have a major issue with a medical journal leaving science, entering politics, where it does not belong, committing gross errors of fact, and then attacking the organization that pointed out the errors. While arrogance is not in short supply at the BMJ, a commitment to accuracy and truth is deficient in this case. We feel we have the obligation to report the BMJ mistakes so that our readers can keep a cool head when digesting what they read.Honestreporting.com,...</description>
            <author>neurologyminutiae</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2259410</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 10:13:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2259410</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Fertility Treatments Unlikely to Raise Ovarian Cancer Risk</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2228345&amp;cid=t_215271_136_f&amp;fid=37846&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fhealthinfoispower.wordpress.com%2F2009%2F03%2F01%2Ffertility-treatments-unlikely-to-raise-ovarian-cancer-risk%2F</link>
            <description>Ovarian cancer risk was no greater for women who used any of four different groups of fertility drugs [gonadotrophins, clomifenes, human chorionic gonadotrophin, and gonadotrophin releasing hormone] than for those who had not used these drugs. Of the ovarian cancer cases that did occur in this cohort, 58 percent were serous tumors—occurring in the outer [...] (Source: Libby's H*O*P*E*)</description>
            <author>Libby's H*O*P*E*</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2228345</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 02 Mar 2009 03:23:06 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2228345</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Planning a pregnancy?  Read this first.</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2195224&amp;cid=t_215271_117_f&amp;fid=36026&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.everydayhealth.com%2Fblog%2Fzimney-health-and-medical-news-you-can-use%2Fplanning-a-pregnancy-read-this-first%2F</link>
            <description>Most women are aware of the need to follow certain nutrition and lifestyle guidelines after they become pregnant, but did you know that it&amp;#8217;s actually important to begin these regimens well before you begin to start a family? Most likely you knew about recommendations to take pre-natal vitamins and not to drink alcohol or smoke cigarettes during pregnancy, but it&amp;#8217;s equally important to start these behaviors much earlier, before you plan to become pregnant, so that you&amp;#8217;ll be &amp;#8220;covered&amp;#8221; from the moment pregnancy occurs. But recent research has found that few women follow pre-pregnancy recommendations. In fact, a study just published online in the British Medical Journal found that only three percent of women who became pregnant were taking the recommended vitamins...</description>
            <author>Dr. Z's Medical Report</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2195224</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 18 Feb 2009 23:11:30 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2195224</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Placebo prescribing: What’s your opinion?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1924861&amp;cid=t_215271_117_f&amp;fid=36026&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.healthtalk.com%2Fzimney%2Fplacebo-prescribing-whats-your-opinion%2F</link>
            <description>Let&amp;#8217;s talk about placebos, and in particular about how you&amp;#8217;d feel if you found out that your doctor had prescribed something for you that he or she believed actually had no activity against your illness other than a psychological effect. But instead of calling it a placebo, he or she told you that the prescription was for &amp;#8220;a medicine not typically used for your condition but which might benefit you.&amp;#8221; Would you be okay with it figuring that your doctor had your best interests in mind and was trying, as best he or she knew how, to help alleviate your symptoms, or would you be angry, feeling that you&amp;#8217;d been misled, or worse, the victim of fraud?
However you feel, it seems that placebo prescribing may be more common than you think. A new study, conducted in the Un...</description>
            <author>Dr. Z's Medical Report</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1924861</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 28 Oct 2008 21:12:50 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1924861</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Alcohol and Personal Tragedy</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1652436&amp;cid=t_215271_151_f&amp;fid=35805&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ftwelvestepfacilitation.com%2Falcohol-and-personal-tragedy%2F</link>
            <description>Alcohol hospital admissions hide individual tragedies, say doctors (issued Tuesday 22 Jul 2008)
The new government figures released today (Tuesday 22 July 2008) revealing that 811,000 people in England were admitted to hospital with alcohol misuse problems in 2006 hide the individual tragedies that hospital frontline staff see day in day out, said the British Medical Association.
The BMA’s Head of Science and Ethics, Dr Vivienne Nathanson, added:
“While this figure is rightly very frightening and shocking, it also hides the hundreds and thousands of individual tragedies that doctors witness every day. Alcohol misuse is related to over 60 medical conditions including heart and liver disease, diabetes, strokes and mental health problems – it costs the NHS millions of pounds every year ...</description>
            <author>Twelve Step Facilitation.com</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1652436</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 24 Jul 2008 13:13:21 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1652436</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>In Australia, Pharma Sponsors ‘Independent’ CME</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1250429&amp;cid=t_215271_150_f&amp;fid=35777&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FPharmalot%2F%7E3%2F239392635%2F</link>
            <description>Amid global calls to end pharma&amp;#8217;s direct sponsorship of physician education, the British Medical Journal writes about an investigation by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation that found industry sponsorship of sessions attended by thousands of general practitioners, who assume the programs are totally independent.
Industry representatives have confirmed that similar practices take place in the UK, where roughly half of all education for doctors is sponsored by drugmakers, writes Ray Moynihan, honorary lecturer at the University of Newcastle in Australia. He describes leaked documents and e-mails from a range of sources showing pharma sponsors have input into the selection of some speakers at seminars held in recent years, despite the fact that these have been aggressively sold to ...</description>
            <author>Pharmalot</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1250429</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 22 Feb 2008 13:09:46 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1250429</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>7 Common Medical Myths Debunked</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1111812&amp;cid=t_215271_109_f&amp;fid=34750&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fpsychcentral.com%2Fblog%2Farchives%2F2007%2F12%2F21%2F7-common-medical-myths-debunked%2F</link>
            <description>We&amp;#8217;re not real sure why people love to believe simplistic things about their health and the human body. Perhaps we like to believe simple folklore because, even if not true, it feels like a common, shared bond that &amp;#8220;everybody knows&amp;#8221; and so we can repeat with others knowing they&amp;#8217;ll agree.
	Leave it to the British Medical Journal and authors Rachel Vreeman and Aaron Carroll (2007) to spoil our holidays by debunking seven of the most commonly repeated medical myths about our bodies and living today. According to their review of the medical literature, each one of these tidbits of common wisdom are false:
	
	People should drink at least eight glasses of water a day

	We use only 10% of our brains

	Hair and fingernails continue to grow after death

	Shaving hair causes ...</description>
            <author>World of Psychology</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1111812</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 21 Dec 2007 16:33:13 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1111812</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>What do you think is the biggest medical advance since 1840?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=397034&amp;cid=t_215271_86_f&amp;fid=34466&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fclinicalevidence.blogspot.com%2F2007%2F01%2Fwhat-do-you-think-is-biggest-medical.html</link>
            <description>The British Medical Journal has published a supplement on their picks for the top 15 advances in medicine since their launch in 1840. It includes computers, the discovery of DNA, antibiotics, anesthesia, figuring out how germs cause disease and how our body fights off infection, the importance of cleanliness and good hygiene, vaccination, and the risks of smoking, among others. Hey, Rachel - The pill made the list too!When you read the list, you can't help but think about how lucky we are to benefit from all these advances, and how many lives have been saved or improved because of the changes.If you're interested in this sort of thing, you have until the end of the day on Sunday to place your vote to help decide which of the 15 is crowned #1.Related:The Hamilton Spectator did a nice piece ...</description>
            <author>Clinical Evidence, Searching Tidbits, and Other Minutiae</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=397034</comments>
            <pubDate>Sat, 13 Jan 2007 17:33:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">397034</guid>        </item>
    </channel>
</rss>

