NcXHF

ADVANCES IN WEBSITE INFORMATION RESOURCES
sources of information and how to derive wisdom from
the content. It is clear from the vast size of the Internet that
we are all life-long learners, and the challenge is to acquire
“just-in-time” information so that we can provide the best
possible care to our patients. The resources that we have
presented in this article should help the practicing oncologist
continue along the path of information to knowledge
to wisdom.
Disclosures of Potential Conflicts of Interest
The author(s) indicated no potential conflicts of interest.
References
1. Berners-Lee T, Cailliau R. WorldWideWeb: Proposal for a HyperText
Project. http://www.w3.org/Proposal.html. Published November 12,
1990. Accessed February 16, 2015.
2. Netcraft. January 2015 Web Server Survey. http://news.netcraft.com/
archives/category/web-server-survey/. Published January 15, 2015. Accessed
February 16, 2015.
3. Sandars J, Morrison C. What is the Net Generation? The challenge for
future medical education. Med Teach. 2007;29:85-88.
4. Hughes B, Joshi I, Lemonde H, et al. Junior physician’s use of Web 2.0
for information seeking and medical education: a qualitative study. Int
J Med Inform. 2009;78:645-655.
5. Rowley J. The wisdom hierarchy: representations of the DIKW hierarchy.
J Inf Sci. 2007;33:163-180.
6. Boulding K. Notes on the information concept. Exploration. 1955;6:
103-112.
7. Matney S, Brewster PJ, Sward KA, et al. Philosophical approaches to the
nursing informatics data-information-knowledge-wisdom framework.
ANS Adv Nurs Sci. 2011;34:6-18.
8. Thiele RH, Poiro NC, Scalzo DC, et al. Speed, accuracy, and confıdence
in Google, Ovid, PubMed, and UpToDate: Results of a randomised trial.
Postgrad Med J. 2010;86:459-465.
9. PubMed®: MEDLINE® Retrieval on the World Wide Web Fact Sheet.
National Institutes of Health U.S. National Libraries of Medicine.
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/factsheets/pubmed.html. Published June 7,
2002. Updated August 27, 2014. Accessed February 16, 2015.
10. Hoogendam A, Stalenhoef AF, Robbe PF, et al. Analysis of queries
sent to PubMed at the point of care: observation of search behaviour
in a medical teaching hospital. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2008;
8:42.
11. Kohlwes RJ, Shunk RL, Avins A, et al. The PRIME curriculum. Clinical
research training during residency. J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21:
506-509.
12. Brin S, Page L. The anatomy of a large-scale hypertextual Web search
engine. Computer networks and ISDN systems. 1998;30:107-117.
13. Falagas ME, Pitsouni EI, Malietzis GA, et al. Comparison of PubMed,
Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: strengths and weaknesses.
FASEB J. 2008;22:338-342.
14. Wolters Kluwer Health. Physician Authors and Editors. http://www.
uptodate.com/home/physician-authors-and-editors. Accessed February
1, 2015.
15. Ensan LS, Faghankhani M, Javanbakht A, et al. To compare PubMed
Clinical Queries and UpToDate in teaching information mastery to
clinical residents: a crossover randomized controlled trial. PLoS One.
2011;6:e23487.
16. Hoogendam A, Stalenhoef AF, Robbé PF, et al. Answers to questions
posed during daily patient care are more likely to be answered by Up-
ToDate than PubMed. J Med Internet Res. 2008;10:e29.
17. Featured Ovid Subjects. Ovid. http://www.ovid.com/site/subjects.jsp.
Accessed February 16, 2015.
18. Nov O. What motivates Wikipedians? Communications of the ACM.
2007;50:60-64.
19. Giles J. Internet encyclopaedias go head to head. Nature. 2005;438:900-
901.
20. Metcalfe D, Powell J. Should doctors spurn Wikipedia? J R Soc Med.
2011;104:488-489.
21. Clauson KA, Polen HH, Boulos MN, et al. Scope, completeness, and
accuracy of drug information in Wikipedia. Ann Pharmacother. 2008;
42:1814-1821.
22. Kraenbring J, Monzon Penza T, Gutmann J, et al. Accuracy and completeness
of drug information in Wikipedia: a comparison with standard
textbooks of pharmacology. PLoS One. 2014;9:e106930.
23. Rajagopalan MS, Khanna VK, Leiter Y, et al. Patient-oriented cancer
information on the internet: a comparison of wikipedia and a professionally
maintained database. J Oncol Pract. 2011;7:319-323.
24. Maskalyk J. Modern medicine comes online: How putting Wikipedia
articles through a medical journal’s traditional process can put free, reliable
information into as many hands as possible. Open Med. 2014;8:
e116-119.
25. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Federal Register. 42
CFR Part 11. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-11-21/pdf/2014-
26197.pdf. Published November 21, 2014. Accessed March 6, 2015.
26. ASCO Profıle and Mission Statement. ASCO.org. http://www.asco.org/
about-asco/asco-profıle-and-mission-statement. Accessed February 16,
2015.
27. About ASCO University. ASCO Universtiy. http://university.asco.org/
about-asco-university. Accessed February 16, 2015.
28. Sledge GW Jr, Miller RS, Hauser R. CancerLinQ and the future of cancer
care. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2013:430-434.
29. Warner JL, Cowan AJ, Hall AC, et al. HemOnc.org: A collaborative online
knowledge platform for oncology professionals. J Oncol Pract. In
Press.
30. Swanton C. My Cancer Genome: A unifıed genomics and clinical trial
portal. Lancet Oncol. 2012;13:668-669.
31. Carney PH. Information technology and precision medicine. Semin Oncol
Nurs. 2014;30:124-129.
32. eHealth Initiative. ehidc.org. Accessed February 26, 2015.
33. Hale TM, Pathipati AS, Zan S, et al. Representation of health conditions
on Facebook: content analysis and evaluation of user engagement. J Med
Internet Res. 2014;16:e182.
34. Himelboim I, Han JY. Cancer talk on twitter: community structure and
information sources in breast and prostate cancer social networks.
J Health Commun. 2014;19:210-225.
35. WarnerJ.HemOnc.org.http://hemonc.org/wiki/Follicular_lymphoma#R-
CHOP. Updated February 16, 2015. Accessed January 16, 2015.
asco.org/edbook | 2015 ASCO EDUCATIONAL BOOK
e615