Papers in PDF format

At the time of this writing, the RxDerm-L list has more than 300 members in 30 countries. The members are
almost all dermatologists. From June 28, 1995 until June 8, 1996, there were more than 1800 letters, most of
which were on the stated topic of the list, therapy of skin disease. The number of postings has gradually
increased and currently often exceeds 20 per day.
The number of diseases archived at the time of this writing is 207. The discussion on various diseases can
range from a few paragraphs to several pages.
At the time of the initial survey, approximately half the diseases on the list were not yet part of the RxDerm
Archives. This compares with 10 that were not part of the DermRx program and that were not found under
that name in Index Medicus. For those diseases found on all three resources, DermRx had the most number of
treatment options, RxDerm Archives had the most discussion, and Melvyl Medline the most up-to-date
information.
Discussion:
The Internet is spawning new forms of dialog. Persons with similar interests worldwide are now connected
and discussing information of mutual interest. In the case of dermatologists, the e-mail list termed RxDerm-L
is used for practitioners to discuss alternative treatment options. Judged by the daily traffic on this list, it is
successful.
This method of information gathering employed here is different from traditional library research. This project
uses several of the enumerated advantages of networked computers. Immediacy, perhaps the greatest
advantage of e-mail, is the key to facilitating this type of dialog. The accumulated practice knowledge of
hundreds of networked specialists is focused as a collaborative effort on discussing the treatment of specific
diseases. The discussion is archived to create a disease-oriented and searchable text for clinicians.. This
resource is intended to serve as a freely accessible reference for practitioners. Access is easy with on-line
search and retrieval. The process of revision occurs continuously within the context of an on-line discussion
group.
Information harvested by this method tends to be much more anecdotal than that found in Journals and Texts.
It is subject to the biases of a multitude of authors writing under minimal editorial restraint. As such it is best
interpreted by the physicians who are already trained in this specialty. Nevertheless, it appears to provide a
useful resource for practicing dermatologists. For many diseases there is an in depth discussion about patient
management. For most letters, the author’s name and e-mail address are present, so the reader might access
the author for further clarification..
The future course of the RxDerm Archives probably includes the addition of editorial oversight and some
additional search capabilities. As the discussions become lengthier, the moderator will need to select responses
for inclusion into the Archives. Editorial pruning will delete duplicated remarks, and limit unsubstantiated
comments. The added search capabilities will allow the reader to search by drug across disease categories.
This project has demonstrated that a popular therapy e-mail list can be harvested to produce a useful reference
resource for the involved community. The potential of harnessing a portion of the global expertise of a medical
specialty should prove a powerful incentive to further projects of this kind.