Where is webmd based

I found that many of WebMD's features didn't work the way they were advertised. Here are some examples:. Despite several attempts over several days, I couldn't get the web-designer application to accept and publish my personal web site.

It's now up at www. The WebMD webmaster has promised to make this right. For example, the fee-schedule analyzer serves up a sample report, but the screens don't tell you where to go or how to obtain the promised analysis of your fees according to your specialty! Of course, WebMD isn't the only place you can go to find information products and services for doctors.

For example, the Physicians' Online Network POL , currently the leading medical information and communication network for doctors, pulls together some of the same resources as does WebMD. Launched in February , POL www. POL connects its members — the largest online community of authenticated physicians — with colleagues, professional associations, health plans, drug companies, luxury-goods purveyors and other resources. Although POL is free to physicians, its pages carry heavy pharmaceutical advertising.

Thankfully, WebMD does not. You have an insurance verifier, a reference library, an answering service and a continuing medical education resource at your fingertips. WebMD may well represent an idea whose time has arrived. Unfortunately, the execution is still a few steps behind. But please stay tuned. DuPont and chip maker Intel have also invested heavily in the deal. Already a member or subscriber? Log in. Interested in AAFP membership? Learn more.

He also is a contributing editor to Family Practice Management. This content is owned by the AAFP. A person viewing it online may make one printout of the material and may use that printout only for his or her personal, non-commercial reference. This material may not otherwise be downloaded, copied, printed, stored, transmitted or reproduced in any medium, whether now known or later invented, except as authorized in writing by the AAFP.

Contact fpmserv aafp. Want to use this article elsewhere? Get Permissions. Read the Issue. In my own perusals of the site, I was bombarded with a dizzying number of ads for pharmaceuticals, hospitals, and sponsored content brought to me by drug companies. On some pages, there were so many ads that actual medical information was difficult to navigate.

I also had to click through multiple pages to read anything on a single topic, forcing me to spend more time on the site and see more ads. 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. Of the page on psoriasis treatments , Robert Dellavalle, the chief of the dermatology service at Denver's VA medical center, said he didn't spot any errors and thinks WedMD "is doing a great job for a free online publication.

All in all, is WebMD trustworthy? It depends on which page you land on and what you're looking for. The site may be an okay starting point for information, like Wikipedia.

But the information isn't always reliable, and unlike Wikipedia, the site's business model relies on the same industry it reports on. If you want independent information about drugs, check out the Informulary out of Dartmouth. I've written about it here. For all medical questions, UpToDate is a great source. It's mostly paywalled though patient information summaries are free, and again, it has no advertising. Another nonprofit, Cochrane , is also a solid source with easy-to-understand, "plain language" summaries of clinical evidence.

I'd go to all these sites before WebMD, but none is a substitute for seeing a doctor you trust. PS: Free study idea for researchers — please follow up on my mini survey and test the reliability of medical websites that millions of patients rely on. They also updated their page on weight loss supplements to reflect new information from Natural Medicine, a source for evidence on complementary and alternative medicine.