When was webmd last updated

All in all, it was user unfriendly, and awash in advertising that might confuse someone looking for a solution to a health problem. Some parts of the site seem to be designed to turn users into patients. The site's popular symptom checker , which allows users to insert basic information about their age, sex, and symptoms, is a hypochondriac's worst nightmare.

A search for bloating in the lower abdomen suggested one could have anything from menstrual cramps to ovarian or colon cancers. A query on back pain spit out this terrifying list of potential possibilities: gas pains, shingles, ovarian cancer, acute kidney failure, and tick bites. No context — just a list of scary diagnoses. The pages on weight loss were a mixed bag.

Information about weight loss supplements suggested green coffee supplements might help. On the other hand, while the site dubiously claims it has "10 easy, painless ways to lose weight," the page actually included some reasonable, if obvious, tips: walk more, hydrate, share restaurant meals. I also found problems with how the site conveys the effectiveness and possible side effects of some prescription drugs.

When I visited the page on weight loss pills , an advertisement on meal replacement shakes popped up, as did an ad for the drug Qsymia — which is among the six drugs featured in the article:. While the site's content is produced by a team of doctors and medical writers, the article failed to mention any basic information about the drug's effectiveness or how many people the drug was likely to help the number needed to treat, in medical parlance. And some of the information was worryingly incomplete.

For example, WebMD didn't note the serious side effects associated with the drug Contrave — it can cause severe, potentially fatal skin reactions and liver failure. But those were just my observations after spending a few hours on the site. In the absence of better evidence, I decided to get the views of independent doctors. The subscription-based website, used mainly by doctors to access summaries of the latest medical information, accepts no advertising money as part of its editorial policy and pursuit of independence.

Overall, the doctors I spoke to said they didn't find anything exceptionally egregious about WebMD. But they noted the lack of context around some of the site's medical advice, as well as a smattering of misinformation. Ryan Connolly found "a few less-than-evidence-based medications listed Risperdal, Zyprexa. Vagus nerve stimulation , a medical treatment that involves delivering electrical impulses to the vagus nerve, was also listed — even though it's no longer considered evidence-based and is almost never done, he said.

Meanwhile, one recently approved drug for depression, brexpiprazole, was left out. Connolly's conclusion: WebMD's depression treatment information is not totally unreliable but is sloppy and incomplete.

And it could easily give patients a skewed view of their treatment options. University of Michigan's Sandeep Vijan thought WebMD's cholesterol treatments page was "oversimplified" and "often phrased in an overly frightening way.

Again, Vijan noted a range in the quality of the site's information. Some of it "may be fine for an initial introduction for patients," he said. Within the group of doctors I surveyed, some spoke highly of the site. The drug information remains and includes common brand names, generic names, and lowest prices.

The section also lists uses, side effects, precautions, interactions, overdose, images, and reviews of the drugs. This section continues to be helpful for users who may have questions for their doctor or pharmacist before taking medication. This can also help users who may have side effects that are not common.

The site directs users to call their doctor if they experience any of the listed side effects, and users also have the option to report the side effects to the FDA. Users can access the symptom checker, conditions, drugs and treatments, and the pill identification tool, and now first aid essentials, local health listings due to COVID, and news on the go.

The mobile app also continues to give users the opportunity to locate physicians, hospitals, and pharmacies in their local area. WebMD continues to remain free for hospitals and institutions, which can add the WebMD link to their website. WebMD also remains free for public use and user friendly for anyone who would like to research symptoms of a possible illness or disease.

WebMD is financed by sponsors, advertisers, and third-party contributors. WebMD continues to be a useful tool for anyone who is looking for possible side effects of medications, common topics, and symptoms that may need medical assistance, and now COVID updates.

WebMD also remains a great tool for healthcare professionals to use to inform the public about health issues and ways to improve health. I have used WebMD to look up symptoms of illnesses, and it has assisted me in my decisions to make an appointment with my primary care physician. Further research should place emphasis on evaluating the credibility behind online health information and their content sources. Just last year, the National Institutes of Health proposed the creation of a complete online archive for all medical and biological research that would give everyone easy and free access to the latest medical research BMJ, So, things are looking bright in the realm of public health information.

However, the problem with this paradigm shift circles around two skeptical observations: 1 Increasing abundance of free, easy-to-use, blogging software has created a decline in restrictions for anonymous web sources to share information. So, how does this relate to WebMD? Each story is then reviewed by a medical editor for accurate, appropriate, and easily understood use of medical language.

Here are some suggestions for addressing credibility: Ask yourself, who wrote this information? Who sponsors the website?