Discussion ( 10 comments ) Post a Comment
  • Another attractive option for medical literature management is Zotero, a reference-manager like application which allows for quick capturing of reference data from websites such as pubmed that can be synced between computers as well as be accessed through a web-interface. For large collections of papers it allows for much better organisation, however the main downside is that they only provide 100mb of pdf storage for free.

  • Wouter, I’m a huge fan of Zotero, but haven’t used it in at least over a year. It seems like they have made some major upgrades from their initial offerings. We’ll have to check it out at iMA and definitely review the product. Thanks for mentioning it.

    Iltifat Husain, MD iMedicalApps Editor
  • Citrix ShareFile is a much more robust, secure, and reliable cloud based secure file exchange service with mobile apps for apple and android. This is a much better choice for physicians if security and reliability and audit tracking of documents are needed,

    • Citrix Sharefile is enterprise based. I use both Dropbox and Evernote.
      Both powerful mobile apps. Nothing is secure from crackers, so be safe. Make sure you can wipe your devices if stolen, and do not put identity information on cloud servers.

  • Personally i prefer box.net, not only for the limited time offer of free 50gb lifetime account, cuz i can upload files using email, and the use of apps, i think you guys shoukd give it a try

  • Physicians should not use cloud based systems with patient data. Data security and data protection levels are not acceptable!

  • I’m appalled by the lack of concern for the security of confidential data shown here. I came by this article precisely because I was looking for something on an area where storing data in the cloud is clearly something to be treated with great caution. As well as showing respect for your patients, you should consider the substantial liability you are laying yourself open to, as this is quite clearly not adequate.

    Medical professionals are typically not data security experts. Guidelines on acceptable practices in this area are sorely needed. Articles like this one don’t count though, being seriously misleading.

    I submit that this article is so bad that it should be taken offline lest it mislead anyone.

    • No where is it mentioned patient information is stored. Rather, we use dropbox to access our medical literature and reference data. Please read the entire posts to understand this. As physicians, we have massive amounts of reading we have to keep up with, and reading about things such as heart failure and other diseases does not require to use a HIPAA compliant platform. Just because we are physicians doesn’t mean our personal reading material that contains no patient information has to be HIPAA complaint.

      Iltifat Husain, MD iMedicalApps Editor
      • If you’re only storing non-confidential reading material, then that changes things significantly.

        If that’s what you are talking about though then how do the comments on security in the article make sense? Rather than discussing whether 256 bit encryption is adequate to protect sensitive data, why not point out that the storage is entirely unencrypted, dropbox has a record of recent large scale security failure, and therefore sensitive data should not be stopped in unencrypted cloud storage like dropbox at all.

        There are encrypted alternatives like Wuala and Spideroak. I don’t know any good ones for sharing files with colleagues, but for sharing securely between your own computers these work well.

      • Thank you for the strong mention of not using Dropbox for identifiable info. There are many providers who are not geeks who would read this and see only the convenience factor. The author should at least have made the point.

        Leon Barzin

Comment on this discussion

Your email is never published nor shared.