Benutzer:MBq/MedQuali

aus Wikipedia, der freien Enzyklopädie

Studien zur Qualität der medizinischen Wikipedia-Artikel

(Stand: August 2014, Hervorhebungen und Verlinkungen durch mich)

Tabelle

Jahr Autor richtig umfassend aktuell verständlich Thema Wikipedia
2005 Giles + Medizin en
2007 Williams ++ Eltern en
2008 Mühlhauser - - Patienten de
2008 Czarnecka + ++ - Gastroenterologie en
2008 Clauson ++ - ++ Medikamente en
2009 Pender - - + + Studenten en
2010 Lorenz + + + + Zahnmedizin de
2010 Leithner + + + + Osteosarkom en
2010 Kim ++ ++ ++ ++ Pathologie en
2011 Tulbert - Hautpatienten en
2011 Rajagopalan + ++ ++ - Krebspatienten en
2011 Lavsa - - - Pharmaziestudenten en
2011 Kupferberg - Statine en
2011 Haigh + Pflegeschüler en
2012 Volsky - - + Pädiatrische HNO en
2012 Reavley ++ ++ ++ - Psychische Störungen en
2012 Pusz + + + + HNO-Patienten en
2012 Aldairy + + + + Kieferchirurgie en
2013 Thomas + + - Nephrol.-Patienten en
2013 Lopez - - Medikamente es
2013 Auvin + + + + Epilepsiepatienten fr
2014 Philips - - - Nahrungsergänzungsmittel en
2014 Koo - - CAM en
2014 Kräenbring ++ + ++ - Pharmakologiestudenten de,en
2015 Nowrouzi ++ ++ ++ - Medizin en

2015

„Wikipedia’s medical content (at the end of 2013) was made up of more than 155,000 articles and 1 billion bytes of text across more than 255 languages. This content was supported by more than 950,000 references. Content was viewed more than 4.88 billion times in 2013. ...The core editor community numbered less than 300 and declined over the past 5 years. The members of this community were half health care providers and 85.5% (100/117) had a university education.“

„Despite most (97%) respondents disclosed that they already had found false information in Wikipedia, recognized errors were seldomly corrected (~20%)... Students should therefore be ...encouraged to contribute to the “perpetual beta” improving Wikipedia’s reliability.“

2014

  • Azer SA: Evaluation of gastroenterology and hepatology articles on Wikipedia: Are they suitable as learning resources for medical students? Abstract Eur J Gastro and Hepatol. 2014;26(2):155-163. doi:10.1097/MEG.0000000000000003

„Several problems were identified with regard to depth of discussion of mechanisms and pathogenesis of diseases, as well as poor elaboration on different investigations... Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information for medical students searching for gastroenterology and hepatology articles.“

BMJ 2014; 348 {{doi|http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g1585]] (Published 6 March 2014)

„Many publications are citing information from a tertiary source that can be edited by anyone, although permanent, evidence based sources are available. We encourage journal editors and reviewers to use caution when publishing articles that cite Wikipedia.“

„...our efforts would be best spent editing and updating Wikipedia pages.“

„The present study demonstrated that most Wikipedia articles on the 10 most costly conditions in the United States contained assertions that are inconsistent with peer-reviewed sources.“

Antworten darauf zB: Beck J: Can Wikipedia Ever Be a Definitive Medical Text? The Atlantic, 5. Mai 2014 ("Just because a reference is peer-reviewed doesn’t mean it’s a high-quality reference."); Chatterjee A, Cooke RM, et al.: Is Wikipedia’s medical content really 90% wrong? Cochrane Collaboration Blog, 23. Juni 2014 ("Differences are not necessarily errors; it also shows how a sourced statement in Wikipedia may be at least as reliable as alternative statements contained in contradictory peer-reviewed sources.")

„Medians of word count and citation density of the CAM articles were significantly lower than those in the articles of conventional medicine therapies.“

„Wikipedia is an accurate and comprehensive source of drug-related information for undergraduate medical education.“

„...studies of Wikipedia’s “quality” have looked into one or more of the following aspects: Reliability or accuracy (that is, absence of factual errors); comprehensiveness or breadth of coverage of subject matter; currency or up-to-dateness of the article contents; and readability and quality of writing style.“

  • Phillips J, Lam C, Palmisano L: Analysis of the accuracy and readability of herbal supplement information on Wikipedia. J Am Pharm Assoc (2003). 2014 Jul 1;54(4):406-14. , PMID 25063262

„Wikipedia articles had 26%-75% of therapeutic uses and 76%-100% of adverse effects listed in the Natural Medicines Comprehensive Database and/or Natural Standard.“

2013

  • Auvin S, Dupont S. (Paris-Diderot/Paris-Sorbonne): [Quality of health information about epilepsy on the Internet: Evaluation of French websites]. Rev Neurol (Paris). 2013 Mar;169(3):234-9. doi:10.1016/j.neurol.2012.08.008. Epub 2012 Oct 12. PMID 23067876 [Article in French]

„We used search engines (French pages from Bing, Google and Yahoo) to look for information using the French equivalent of three keywords epilepsy (Épilepsie); epilepsy treatment (Épilepsie traitement) and seizure (Convulsions). ... We found six French websites which were scored higher than half of the maximal value of our scoring system (≥27.5/55): www.passeportsante.net; fr.wikipedia.org; www.fondation-epilepsie.fr; www.epilepsie-france.fr; www.doctissimo.fr; www.caducee.net.“

  • Kolski D, Arlt S, et al. (Berlin): Use and acceptance of Wiki systems for students of veterinary medicine. GMS Z Med Ausbild. 2013;30(1):Doc10. doi:10.3205/zma000853. Epub 2013 Feb 21. PMID 23467415. Volltext

„A questionnaire was provided to students (n 210) of the faculty of Veterinary Medicine at the Freie Universität Berlin, Germany. The experience in writing or editing of information was low (8.6% Wikipedia, 15.3% veterinary wiki systems). Male students had significantly more writing experience than females (p 0,008). In addition, students of the higher years were more experienced in writing and editing than students of the first year (7.4% in the 4(th) year).“

  • López Marcos P, Sanz-Valero J (Elche): [Presence and adequacy of pharmaceutical preparations in the Spanish edition of Wikipedia].". Atencion primaria / Sociedad Espanola de Medicina de Familia y Comunitaria 2013 Feb 45 (2): 101–6. doi:10.1016/j.aprim.2012.09.012. PMID 23159792

„The sample was calculated by simple random sampling without replacement from the active ingredients present in the Vademecum... The existence and adequacy of the terminology was observed by accessing the Spanish edition of Wikipedia. The qualitative binary variable yes/no (presence of the pharmaceutical drug, use, posology, adverse effects, adequacy) were described by frequency and percentage, quantitative (number of queries, update) using mean and standard deviation. Of the sample studied (n 386), 171 terms were found, with 15 being adequate. Significant differences were observed between adequacy and dose (P<.001) and adverse effects (P<.001), but not with use (P .193). CONCLUSIONS: Pharmaceutical preparation entries in the Spanish edition of Wikipedia are still insufficient and the adequacy of the information remains inconsistent.“

„Web 2.0 and appropriate algorithms enable users to rely on the guidance or behavior of their peers in selecting and consuming information.“

  • Thomas, GR, Eng L, et al. (Toronto): An Evaluation of Wikipedia as a Resource for Patient Education in Nephrology. Semin Dial. 2013 Mar-Apr;26(2):159-63. Epub 2013 Feb 22. doi:10.1111/sdi.12059 PMID 23432369. Volltext, PDF

„The International Statistical Classification of Diseases andRelated problems, 10th Edition (ICD-10) diagnostic codes for nephrology (N00–N29.8) were used as a topic list to investigate the English Wikipedia database. Comprehensiveness was assessed by the proportion of ICD-10 codes that had corresponding articles. Reliability was measured by both the number of references per article and proportion of references from substantiated sources. Finally, readability was assessed using three validated indices (Flesch-Kincaid grade level, Automated readability index, and Flesch reading ease). Nephrology articles on Wikipedia were relatively comprehensive, with 70.5% of ICD-10 codes being represented. The articles were fairly reliable,with 7.1 ± 9.8 (mean ± SD) references per article, of which 59.7 ± 35.0% were substantiated references. Finally, all three readability indices determined that nephrology articles are written at a college level.“

2012

  • Aldairy T, Laverick S, McIntyre GT (Dundee): Orthognathic surgery: is patient information on the Internet valid? Eur J Orthod. 2012 Aug;34(4):466-9. doi:10.1093/ejo/cjr046. Epub 2011 Mar 31. PMID 21459834 Volltext (PDF)

„25 relevant websites were evaluated using the DISCERN instrument. The highest score achieved by one of the websites was 64 of 80 and the lowest score achieved was 21 of 80. The websites achieving maximum and minimum score were Wikipedia and qualitydentistry.com, respectively.“

  • Chiang CD, Lewis CL, et al. (St. Louis MO): Learning chronobiology by improving Wikipedia. J Biol Rhythms. 2012 Aug;27(4):333-6. doi:10.1177/0748730412449578. PMID 22855578.

„46 students in a university course edited Wikipedia to enhance public access to important discoveries in chronobiology. Students worked for an average of 9 h each to evaluate the primary literature and available Wikipedia information, nominated sites for editing, and, after voting, edited the 15 Wikipedia pages they determined to be highest priorities. This assignment [1] was easy to implement, required relatively short time commitments from the professor and students, and had measurable impacts on Wikipedia and the students. Students created 3 new Wikipedia sites, edited 12 additional sites, and cited 347 peer-reviewed articles. The targeted sites all became top hits in online search engines. Because their writing was and will be read by a worldwide audience, students found the experience rewarding.“

  • Pusz MD [2], Brietzke SE (Bethesda, MD): How good is Google? The quality of otolaryngology information on the internet. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2012 Sep;147(3):462-5. doi:10.1177/0194599812447733. Epub 2012 May 17. PMID 22597577

„A Google keyword search was performed for 10 common otolaryngology problems including ear infection, hearing loss, tonsillitis, and so on. The top 10 search results for each were critically examined using the 16-item (1-5 scale) standardized DISCERN instrument. Searches for more typically chronic otolaryngic problems (eg, tinnitus, sleep apnea, etc) resulted in more biased, advertisement-type results than those for typically acute problems (eg, ear infection, sinus infection, P .03). Results from major comprehensive Web sites (WebMD, EMedicinehealth.com, Wikipedia, etc.) scored higher than other Web sites (mean DISCERN score 3.46 vs 2.48, P < .001).“

  • Reavley NJ [3], Mackinnon AJ, et al. (Melbourne): Quality of information sources about mental disorders: a comparison of Wikipedia with centrally controlled web and printed sources. Psychol Med. 2012 Aug;42(8):1753-62. doi:10.1017/S003329171100287X. Epub 2011 Dec 14. PMID 22166182

„Content on 10 mental health-related topics was extracted from 14 frequently accessed websites (including Wikipedia) providing information about depression and schizophrenia, Encyclopaedia Britannica, and a psychiatry textbook. The content was rated by experts according to the following criteria: accuracy, up-to-dateness, breadth of coverage, referencing and readability. RESULTS: Ratings varied significantly between resources according to topic. Across all topics, Wikipedia was the most highly rated in all domains except readability.“

  • Volsky PG [4], Baldassari CM,et al. (Norfolk, VA): Quality of Internet information in pediatric otolaryngology: a comparison of three most referenced websites. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2012 Sep;76(9):1312-6. doi:10.1016/j.ijporl.2012.05.026. Epub 2012 Jul 7. PMID 22770592

„Twenty-four diagnoses in pediatric otolaryngology were entered in Google and the top five URLs for each were ranked. ... Wikipedia, eMedicine, and NLM/NIH MedlinePlus were the most referenced sources. For content accuracy, eMedicine [5] scored highest (84%; p<0.05) over MedlinePlus [6] (49%) and Wikipedia (46%). The highest incidence of errors and omissions per article was found in Wikipedia (0.98±0.19), twice more than eMedicine (0.42±0.19; p<0.05). Errors were similar between MedlinePlus and both eMedicine and Wikipedia. On ratings for user interface, which incorporated Flesch-Kinkaid Reading Level and Flesch Reading Ease, MedlinePlus was the most user-friendly (4.3±0.29). This was nearly twice that of eMedicine (2.4±0.26) and slightly greater than Wikipedia (3.7±0.3). All differences were significant (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: eMedicine has the most accurate, comprehensive content and fewest errors, but is more challenging to read and navigate. Both Wikipedia and MedlinePlus have lower content accuracy and more errors, however MedlinePlus is simplest of all to read, at a 9th Grade level.“

  • von Muhlen M [7], Ohno-Machado L (San Diego, CA): Reviewing social media use by clinicians. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2012 Sep-Oct;19(5):777-81. Epub 2012 Jul 3. Review. PMID 22759618. Volltext

„Adoption studies of social media use by clinicians were systematically reviewed, up to July 26th, 2011, to determine the extent of adoption and highlight trends in institutional responses. This search led to 370 articles, of which 50 were selected for review, including 15 adoption surveys. The definition of social media is evolving rapidly; the authors define it broadly to include social networks and group-curated reference sites such as Wikipedia. Facebook accounts are very common among health science students (64-96%) and less so for professional clinicians (13-47%). Adoption rates have increased sharply in the past 4 years. Wikipedia is widely used as a reference tool.“

2011

  • Haigh CA [8] (Manchester): Wikipedia as an evidence source for nursing and healthcare students. Nurse Educ Today. 2011 Feb;31(2):135-9. doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2010.05.004. Epub 2010 Jun 20. PMID 20646799

„A 10% sample of health related Wikipedia entries were evaluated, with a total of 2598 references assessed. In total 1473 (56%) of the references citied on the Wikipedia pages reviewed could be argued to come from clearly identifiable reputable sources. This translates to a mean number of reputable sources of 29 per Wikipedia entry. The quality of the evidence taken obtained from the 2500 plus references from over 50 Wikipedia pages was of sufficiently sound quality to suggest that, for health related entries, Wikipedia is appropriate for use by nursing students.“

„Though it is impossible to guarantee the validity of every Wikipedia article, as no one person is ultimately responsible for the content, the development of an elaborate antivandalism system explains the paradox of how quality can be sustained in a radically open editing system.“

  • Kupferberg N, Protus BM (Columbus OH): Accuracy and completeness of drug information in Wikipedia: an assessment. J Med Libr Assoc. 2011 October; 99(4): 310–313. doi:10.3163/1536-5050.99.4.010 PMID 22022226. [Volltext, PDF]

„The five statins selected were those listed in the “Because the entries on the five most commonly prescribed statins lacked important information, the authors recommend that consumers should seek other sources and not rely solely on Wikipedia.“

  • Lavsa SM, Corman SL, et al. (Houston): Reliability of Wikipedia as a medication information source for pharmacy students. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning 3 (2): 154–158. {{doi:10.1016/j.cptl.2011.01.007}}

„Wikipedia articles for the 20 most frequently prescribed drugs per published lists of top 200 brand and generic drugs were evaluated. Categories most frequently absent were drug interactions and medication use in breastfeeding. No article contained all categories of information. Information on contraindications and precautions, drug absorption, and adverse drug events was most frequently found to be inaccurate; descriptions of off-label indications, contraindications and precautions, drug interactions, adverse drug events, and dosing were most frequently incomplete. Referencing was poor across all articles... Conclusion: Wikipedia does not provide consistently accurate, complete, and referenced medication information.“

„To investigate the sources of online information about prescription drugs... About three quarters of the first result on Google USA for both brand and generic names linked to the National Library of Medicine. In contrast, Wikipedia was the first result for approximately 80% of generic name searches on the other 3 sites (Bing, Google Canada, and Yahoo). On these other sites, over two thirds of brand name searches led to industry-sponsored sites. The Wikipedia pages with the highest number of hits were mainly for opiates, benzodiazepines, antibiotics, and antidepressants.“

  • McInnes N, Haglund BJ (Stockholm): Readability of online health information: implications for health literacy. Inform Health Soc Care. 2011 Dec;36(4):173-89. doi:10.3109/17538157.2010.542529. Epub 2011 Feb 18. PMID 21332302

„Accessibility is one of six quality criteria articulated by the European Commission in its code of conduct for health websites. The names of 22 health conditions were entered into five search engines, and the readability of the first 10 results for each search were evaluated using Gunning FOG, SMOG, Flesch-Kincaid and Flesch Reading Ease tests (n 352). The mean reading grade was 12.30, andthe mean FRE was 46.08, scores considered 'difficult'. Websites with .gov and .nhs TLDs were the most readable while .edu sites were the least. Within texts, a trend of increasing difficulty was found with concluding paragraphs being the hardest to read. It was also found that some of the most frequent search results (such as Wikipedia pages) were amongst the hardest to read.“

  • Metcalfe D, Powell J: Correspondance: Should doctors spurn Wikipedia? J R Soc Med. 2011 Dec;104(12):488-9. doi: 10.1258/jrsm.2011.110227. PMID 22179287. Volltext

„The evidence suggests that Wikipedia can have legitimate educational uses for individuals. These include a quick resource for finding general information and as an instrument for preliminary literature searching.1 The uncertain providence of information on Wikipedia should remind doctors to exercise caution when receiving established ‘fact’ from any source, whether online, published, or spoken by a senior colleague. If medical professionals can be encouraged to actively engage with Wikipedia, they may become involved in correcting errors as they are identified. Wikipedia is a rare opportunity for doctors to interact with an educational resource while helping develop an important public health information tool.“

  • Rajagopalan MS [10], Khanna VK, et al. (Pittsburgh/Philadelphia/Haifa): Patient-oriented cancer information on the internet: a comparison of wikipedia and a professionally maintained database. J Oncol Pract. 2011 Sep;7(5):319-23. doi:10.1200/JOP.2010.000209. Epub 2011 Aug 4. PMID 22211130 Volltext (PDF)

„In this study, the coverage, accuracy, and readability of cancer information on Wikipedia were compared with those of the patient-orientated National Cancer Institute's Physician Data Query (PDQ) comprehensive cancer database. For each of 10 cancer types, medically trained personnel scored PDQ and Wikipedia articles for accuracy and presentation of controversies by using an appraisal form. ... For both Web sites, inaccuracies were rare, less than 2% of information examined. PDQ was significantly more readable than Wikipedia: Flesch-Kincaid grade level 9.6 versus 14.1. There was no difference in depth of coverage between PDQ and Wikipedia (29.9, 34.2, respectively; maximum possible score 72). Controversial aspects of cancer care were relatively poorly discussed in both resources (2.9 and 6.1 for PDQ and Wikipedia, respectively, NS; maximum possible score 18). A planned subanalysis comparing common and uncommon cancers demonstrated no difference.“

  • Tulbert BH, Snyder CW, Brodell RT (Ohio): Readability of Patient-oriented Online Dermatology Resources. J Clin Aesthet Dermatol. 2011 Mar;4(3):27-33. PMID 21464884; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3070466. Volltext, PDF

„Wikipedia.org proved significantly harder to comprehend than all other sources.“

2010

  • Kim JY, Gudewicz TM, et al. (Boston): The pathology informatics curriculum wiki: Harnessing the power of user-generated content. J Pathol Inform 2010 Jul 13;1. . PubMed PMID 20805963; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2929539. Volltext, PDF

„We have evaluated pathology informatics content in Wikipedia. Evaluation of articles on a five-point Likert scale showed high scores for comprehensiveness (4.05), quality (4.08), currency (4.18), and utility for the beginner (3.85) and advanced (3.93) learners. These results are compelling and support the thesis that Wikipedia articles can be used as the foundation for a basic curriculum in pathology informatics.“

„Three independent observers tested the English version of Wikipedia, as well as the patient version and the health professional version of the US National Cancer Institute (NCI) website. Answers were verified with authoritative resources and international guidelines. The results of our study demonstrate that the quality of osteosarcoma-related information found in the English Wikipedia is good but inferior to the patient information provided by the NCI.“

  • Lorenz A, Türp JC (Freiburg): [Dentistry in Wikipedia: A quantitative and qualitative analysis]. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed. 2010;120(12):1117-26. PMID 21261123 [Article in French, German] Volltxt, PDF

„The aim of this study was to assess the scientific quality of the 265 dental articles that were present in January 2008 in the German-language version of Wikipedia. Of the 261 usable articles, 28% were qualitatively comparable to a textbook, while 56% had partial textbook quality. About 16% of the articles fell into the third group.“

  • Schalnus R, Aulmann G, et al. (Frankfurt): Content quality of ophthalmic information on the internet. Ophthalmologica. 2010;224(1):30-7. doi:10.1159/000233233. Epub 2009 Aug 13. PMID 19684426.

„Quality of content modules about age-related macular degeneration (AMD) was analyzed on 20 web sites. Content analysis covered 72 criteria in 11 groups. On average, 25.6% (+/-15.6) of the criteria were fulfilled. In the categories diagnostic procedures, therapy, preventive checkups, prevention and prognosis of AMD, only 12.7, 18.3, 20.0, 25.0 and 30.0%, respectively, of the required content was given.“

  • Younger P (Weston Super Mare, Somerset): Using wikis as an online health information resource. Nurs Stand. 2010 May 12-18;24(36):49-56; quiz 58. PMID 20527486. Volltext, PDF

„For some areas of health information, Wikipedia can provide well-referenced articles.“

2009

  • Brokowski L, Sheehan AH (West Lafayette, IN): Evaluation of pharmacist use and perception of Wikipedia as a drug information resource. Ann Pharmacother. 2009 Nov;43(11):1912-3. doi:10.1345/aph.1M340. Epub 2009 Oct 20. PubMed PMID 19843833. Volltext

„Of concern, only 28% (29/105) of the respondents who reported using Wikipedia to obtain drug information were familiar with who edits and manages the Web site. This study is limited by a low response rate...“

  • Hughes B [12], Joshi I, et al. (Barcelona): Junior physician's use of Web 2.0 for information seeking and medical education: a qualitative study. Int J Med Inform. 2009 Oct;78(10):645-55. doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2009.04.008. Epub 2009 Jun 5. PMID 19501017

„This study examines Web 2.0 use by 35 junior physicians in clinical settings, Diaries and interviews encompassing 177 days of internet use or 444 search incidents, analyzed via thematic analysis. Results indicate that 53% of internet visits employed user-generated or Web 2.0 content, with Google and Wikipedia used by 80% and 70% of physicians, respectively.“

  • Laurent MR, Vickers TJ: Seeking health information online: does Wikipedia matter? J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2009 Jul-Aug;16(4):471-9. doi:10.1197/jamia.M3059. Epub 2009 Apr 23. PubMed PMID 19390105; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2705249. Volltext

„Based on its search engine ranking and page view statistics, the English Wikipedia is a prominent source of online health information compared to the other online health information providers studied.“

  • Pender MP, Lasserre KE, et al. (Brisbane): [Letter]: Is Wikipedia unsuitable as a clinical information resource for medical students? Med Teach. 2009 Dec;31(12):1095-6. PMID 20050104. Konferenzbeitrag, Paper (PDF) dazu

„Blinded to the information resources, medical academics compared conjunctivitis, multiple sclerosis and otitis media entries from Wikipedia against those from Emedicine [13] and two subscription-based resources, namely AccessMedicine [14] and UpToDate [15], using a scale developed to rank their accuracy, coverage, concision, currency and suitability for medical students. Medical librarians assessed their accessibility and usability. RESULTS: The entries in Wikipedia, in comparison with the other resources, were easy to access, navigate and well presented. Although reasonably concise and current, they failed to cover key aspects of two of the topics, and contained some factual errors. Wikipedia was thus judged unsuitable for medical students.“

2008

  • Clauson KA [16], Polen HH, et al. (Ft. Lauderdale, FL): Scope, completeness, and accuracy of drug information in Wikipedia. Ann Pharmacother. 2008 Dec;42(12):1814-21. doi:10.1345/aph.1L474. Epub 2008 Nov 18. PMID 19017825

„To compare the scope, completeness, and accuracy of drug information in Wikipedia with that of a free, online, traditionally edited database (Medscape Drug Reference MDR). RESULTS: Wikipedia was able to answer significantly fewer drug information questions (40.0%) compared with MDR (82.5%; p < 0.001). Wikipedia performed poorly regarding information on dosing, with a score of 0% versus the MDR score of 90.0%. Answers found in Wikipedia were 76.0% complete, while MDR provided answers that were 95.5% complete; overall, Wikipedia answers were less complete than those in Medscape (p < 0.001). No factual errors were found in Wikipedia, whereas 4 answers in Medscape conflicted with the answer key; errors of omission were higher in Wikipedia (n 48) than in MDR (n 14). There was a marked improvement in Wikipedia over time, as current entries were superior to those 90 days prior (p 0.024). CONCLUSIONS: Wikipedia has a more narrow scope, is less complete, and has more errors of omission than the comparator database.“

  • Czarnecka-Kujawa K, Abdalian R, Grover SC (Ontario): M1042: The Quality of Open Access and Open Source Internet Material in Gastroenterology: Is Wikipedia Appropriate for Knowledge Transfer to Patients? Gastroenterology 134(4):0 doi:10.1016/S0016-5085(08)61518-8 Kongreßbeitrag, PDF

„Of the 203 total first generation ICD-10 diagnostic codes in gastroenterology, 168 (82.8%) had Wikipedia entries, either as articles, or as sections of an article... The average number of references per article was 6.8. The median Flesch-Kincaid grade level for these articles was 13.7, and the average Flesch reading ease score was 32.1. Conclusions: Wikipedia's content in gastroenterology is comprehensive, with over 80% of ICD-10 and ICD-9 codes represented. The reliability of the material contained therein is moderate, with more than half of gastroenterology articles being substantiated with a peer-reviewed reference. The gastroenterology articles in Wikipedia are readible with a grade level of slightly higher than high school.“

„Apomediation is a new socio-technological term that was coined to avoid the term “Web 2.0”... an information seeking strategy where people rely less on traditional experts and authorities as gatekeepers, but instead receive “guidance” from apomediaries, ie, networked collaborative filtering processes.“

  • Johnson PT [17], Chen JK, et al. (Baltimore): A comparison of world wide web resources for identifying medical information. Acad Radiol. 2008 Sep;15(9):1165-72. doi:10.1016/j.acra.2008.02.010. PMID 18692758

„This study randomly assigned 89 medical student volunteers to use either Google or any other web-based resource (excluding Google) to research 10 advanced medical questions in a multiple choice exam. Primary outcome measures were resource efficiency (inversely related to number of links used to identify the correct answer for each question) and correctness (number of correct answers/total number of questions answered). For Google searches, the sites providing the information in question were also evaluated. RESULTS: The most frequently selected non-Google resources were Yahoo (n 531), Ask.com (n 110), and the interactive encyclopedia Wikipedia.com (n 74). Google was more efficient than all other resources (1.50 vs. 1.94 mean links, P<.0001), with no significant difference in correctness (97% [756/780] vs. 96% [747/780], P .16). After a Google search, the four most common categories of sites that provided the correct answer were dictionary/encyclopedia sites, medical websites, National Library of Medicine resources, or journal websites. Yahoo was less efficient than Google (1.90 vs. 1.54 mean links, P<.0001). However, non-Google search engines were more efficient than web sites (eg, Wikipedia, medical websites) and PubMed (1.87 vs. 2.54 mean links, P .0004).“

  • Mühlhauser I [18], Oser F (Hamburg): [Does WIKIPEDIA provide evidence-based health care information? A content analysis]. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2008;102(7):441-8. PMID 19209572 Volltext, PDF [Article in German]

„22 senior students of health sciences and education evaluated the websites of Wikipedia and two major German statutory health insurances for content and presentation of patient information, one topic each. All these websites failed to meet relevant criteria, and key information such as the presentation of probabilities of success on patient-relevant outcomes, probabilities of unwanted effects, and unbiased risk communication was missing. ... In addition, the Wikipedia information tended to achieve lower comprehensibility.“

  • Williams N, Mughal S, Blair M (London): "Is my child developing normally?": a critical review of web-based resources for parents. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2008 Dec;50(12):893-7. Review. {{DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-8749.2008.03148.x}} PubMed PMID 19160461. Volltext

„An internet search (on Google and Yahoo) was conducted using the search terms ‘child development’, ‘parenting’, and ‘developmental milestones’. Forty-four relevant websites were identified for further analysis. The average score for accuracy was 6.6 out of 10 (Wikipedia:8).“

2007

  • Nielsen FA (Kopenhagen): Scientific citations in Wikipedia. First Monday, [S.l.], aAug. 2007. ISSN 13960466. Available at: [19]. Date accessed: 04 Jun. 2013. doi:10.5210/fm.v12i8.1997. Volltext

„...results show an increasing use of structured citation markup and good agreement with citation patterns seen in the scientific literature though with a slight tendency to cite articles in high–impact journals such as Nature and Science.“

2005

„Peer reviewers recruited by Nature identified an average of four inaccuracies in the Wikipedia articles they examined and an average of around three in articles on the same topics in Britannica.“

Quellen

Siehe auch

Abgerufen von „https://de.wikiup.org/index.php?title=Benutzer:MBq/MedQuali&oldid=143317094“