fbpx
Wikipedia

Health information on Wikipedia

January 13, 2023

The Wikipedia online encyclopedia has, since the late 2000s, served as a popular source for health information for both laypersons and, in many cases, health care practitioners. Health-related articles on Wikipedia are popularly accessed as results from search engines, which frequently deliver links to Wikipedia articles.[1] Independent assessments have been made of the number and demographics of people who seek health information on Wikipedia, the scope of health information on Wikipedia, and the quality of the information on Wikipedia.[2]

Popular medical websites in July 2019.

The English Wikipedia was estimated in 2014 to hold around 25,000 articles on health-related topics.[3] Across Wikipedia encyclopedias in all languages there were 155,000 health articles using 950,000 citations to sources and which collectively received 4.8 billion pageviews in 2013.[4] This amount of traffic makes Wikipedia one of the most consulted health resources in the world, or perhaps the most consulted resource.[4]

Amount of health content

 
Number of medical articles added to Wikipedia per half year, 2011 to 2020.

As of the end of 2013, the English Wikipedia had 29,072 medical articles, while across all language versions of Wikipedia, there were 155,805 medical articles.[4] As of March 2017, the English Wikipedia had 30,000 medical articles, while there were 164,000 medical articles in other languages.[5] As of 2017, there were about 6,000 anatomy articles on the English Wikipedia;[6] these are not classified as "medical articles" in Wikipedia's categorization scheme and thus are not included in the 30,000 figure above.[4]

Academic studies

See also: Wikipedia:Academic studies of health information on Wikipedia

Accuracy and usefulness

A 2007 study examined a sample of Wikipedia pages about the most frequently performed surgical procedures in the United States, and found that 85.7% of them were appropriate for patients and that these articles had "a remarkably high level of internal validity".[7] However, the same study also raised concerns about Wikipedia's completeness, noting that only 62.9% of the articles examined were free of "critical omissions".[7] A 2008 study reported that drug information on Wikipedia "has a more narrow scope, is less complete, and has more errors of omission" than did such information on the traditionally edited online database Medscape Drug Reference.[8] A 2010 study found that Wikipedia's article on osteosarcoma was of decent quality, but that the National Cancer Institute (NCI)'s page was better. The authors concluded that Wikipedia should include external links to higher-quality sources.[9]

A 2011 assessment of 50 medical articles on Wikipedia found that 56% of the references cited on these pages could be considered reputable, and that each entry contained 29 reputable sources on average.[10] A 2011 study examined Wikipedia pages about five statins, and concluded that these pages did not contain incorrect or misleading information, but that they were often missing information about drug interactions and contraindications to use.[11] Another 2011 study examining Wikipedia articles on the 20 most widely prescribed drugs found that seven of these articles did not have any references, and concluded that "Wikipedia does not provide consistently accurate, complete, and referenced medication information."[12]

An assessment of Wikipedia articles in 2012 on dietary supplements found that Wikipedia articles were "frequently incomplete, of variable quality, and sometimes inconsistent with reputable sources of information on these products."[13]

A 2013 scoping review published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research summarized the existing evidence about the use of wikis, Wikipedia and other collaborative writing applications in health care and found that the available research publications were observational reports rather than the primary research studies which would be necessary to begin drawing conclusions.[14]

A 2014 study that examined 97 Wikipedia articles about complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) found that 4% of them had attained "Good article" status, and that CAM articles on Wikipedia tended to be significantly shorter than those about conventional therapies.[15]

In May 2014, The Journal of the American Osteopathic Association published an article which concluded that "Most Wikipedia articles for the 10 costliest conditions in the United States contain errors compared with standard peer-reviewed sources."[16][17] Following this paper, many other media sources reported that readers should not trust Wikipedia for medical information.[18][19][20][21] Some of Wikipedia's prominent health content contributors defended Wikipedia and criticized the study,[22] noting that “Wikipedia is not about truth, but about verifiability.” That is, the Wikipedians contended that since the mission of Wikipedia is to reflect what mainstream sources (such as UK’s National Institute of Health Care Excellence) say about any given topic, Wikipedia will be just as inaccurate as those sources. Since Wikipedia’s policy is to state these inaccuracies that exist in its sources as though they were true (even when editors know they are not true), Wikipedians feel that pointing out how inaccurate Wikipedia’s health articles are completely misses the point of Wikipedia, since “Wikipedia is not about truth, but [instead] about verifiability.” Wikipedians also noted that the small sample size may have skewed results (in either direction) and that the study may have understated Wikipedia’s level of inaccuracy by not accounting for the important information that Wikipedia articles leave out.[23]

A 2014 study found that when the FDA issues new safety warnings about drugs, in 41% of cases reviewed Wikipedia articles about those drugs were updated to give the new safety information within two weeks.[24] Another 23% of Wikipedia drug articles were updated to give this information within an average of about 40 days, but 36% of articles are not updated with this information within a year.[24] A 2014 comparison between selected drug information from pharmacology textbooks and comparable information on the English-language and German-language Wikipedias found that the drug information in Wikipedia covers most of what is essential for undergraduate pharmacology studies and that it is accurate.[25]

A 2015 study comparing the coverage of the autism-vaccine controversy on several websites found that Wikipedia's articles were broadly pro-vaccine. The study attributed this pro-vaccine stance to "this highly controversial topic attracting committed editors who strictly enforce the requirements for academic references."[26] A 2016 study found that drug information on Wikipedia was less accurate and complete than that on the medical reference site Micromedex.[27] A 2017 study compared the accuracy of Wikipedia articles about the 33 most popular medications with medication guides to the accuracy of their medication guides. The study found that the Wikipedia articles were generally less accurate than were the corresponding medication guides.[28]

Readability

In 2012, Wikipedia's articles on depression and schizophrenia were compared to coverage in Encyclopædia Britannica and a psychiatry textbook and evaluated for their accuracy, up-to-dateness, breadth of coverage, referencing, and readability. Wikipedia was ranked highly across all categories except for readability.[29]

A 2013 review of nephrology content on Wikipedia found it to be "a comprehensive and fairly reliable medical resource for nephrology patients that is written at a college reading level".[30]

A 2014 study found that Wikipedia's article on Parkinson's disease had a Flesch reading ease score of 30.31, meaning that it was difficult to read.[31]

The readability of Wikipedia's articles on epilepsy was evaluated and found to be low, indicating that they were difficult to read.[32] Another study found that Wikipedia's information about neurological diseases was significantly more difficult to read than the information in the American Academy of Neurology's patient brochures, the Mayo Clinic's website, or MedlinePlus.[33] Another 2015 study, this one authored by Samy Azer, reported that Wikipedia should not be used to learn about concepts related to pulmonology students.[34] Another 2015 study by Azer found that Wikipedia entries about cardiovascular diseases were "not aimed at a medical audience" and were mainly inaccurate due to errors of omission.[35]

A 2016 study found that Wikipedia information about common internal medicine diagnoses was written at a higher grade level than any of the four other sites studied (NIH, WebMD, Mayo Clinic, and "diagnosis-specific websites").[36] In contrast, another study published the same year found that medical students reading about three unstudied diseases on AccessMedicine and Wikipedia experienced less mental effort than did readers of the same diseases on UpToDate.[37]

A 2017 study evaluating 134 Wikipedia articles on autoimmune diseases found that they were very difficult to read and required at least a university graduate reading level. The study's authors were concerned by Wikipedia's low readability, as people with autoimmune disorders often use Wikipedia to research their condition.[38]

A 2018 study evaluating 55 Wikipedia articles on neurosurgical topics found that they were significantly more difficult to read than the American Association of Neurological Surgeons's patient information articles, although both Wikipedia's articles and the AANS articles required a college reading level.[39]

Other views

Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales has said that lack of health information increases preventable deaths in emerging markets and that health information from Wikipedia can improve community health.[40] Wales presented the Wikipedia Zero project as a channel for delivering health information into places where people have difficulty accessing online information.[40]

As a result of public interest in the 2014 Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa, Wikipedia became a popular source of information on Ebola.[41] Doctors who were Wikipedia contributors said that Wikipedia's quality made it useful.[41]

Alternative medicine

People who promote alternative medicine have complained that Wikipedia negatively portrays holistic health treatments including energy medicine, Emotional Freedom Techniques, Thought Field Therapy and Tapas Acupressure Technique.[42] In response, Wales has stated, "If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals – that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately."[42][43][44] Similar concerns have been raised regarding its coverage of homeopathy.[45]

Wikipedia policy for articles that "could reasonably be perceived as relating to human health" comes under the policy for medicine-related articles which is science-based.

Usage

The majority of people in the United States use the internet as a source of health information.[46] The third most common activity for information seeking online is looking up health or medical information.[47] One 2013 study suggested that 22% of healthcare searches online direct users to Wikipedia.[48]

Wikipedia was described in 2014 in a report published by IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics as "the leading single source" of healthcare information for patients and healthcare professionals.[49] According to the same report, 50% of U.S. physicians that go online for professional purposes are using Wikipedia to access information. These facts were referenced on page 17 from the same research report published by IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics on "Engaging Patients Through Social Media," and were recirculated further in popular media outlets and peer-reviewed articles. The IMS report provides a citation to an undated research report in "Taking the Pulse" by Manhattan Research, which is unavailable using most library research databases

In July 2014, Wikipedia's medical content in all languages was viewed more often than any other popular healthcare website, including the NIH, WebMD, Mayo Clinic, NHS, WHO, and UpToDate.[4][50] Some doctors have described their use of Wikipedia as a "guilty secret".[51]

General public

A 2015 study compared the popularity of Wikipedia's articles on ten of the most common neurological disorders over a 90-day period from April 2014 to July 2014; it found that there was no relationship between the incidence or prevalence of a neurological disorder and the number of page views it received. For example, Wikipedia's article on multiple sclerosis was far more popular than its articles on more common disorders like migraine, epilepsy, or stroke. The authors theorized that this might be due to the increasing prevalence of MRI scans, which has led to an increase in incidental findings of white matter lesions. Although most of these lesions have nothing to do with multiple sclerosis, they may lead patients, relatives, and even physicians to perform Internet searches on "multiple sclerosis", which may lead them to the Wikipedia article.[52]

Medical students

Wikipedia's health information has been described as "transforming how our next doctors learn medicine".[53] Various commentators in health education have said that Wikipedia is popular and convenient for medical students.[54]

A 2013 study done at a single Australian medical school showed that 97% of students used Wikipedia to study medicine, with the most common reasons being ease of access and ease of understanding. There was no relationship between a student's year in medical school and his or her use of Wikipedia, but students further along in medical school were less likely to use Wikipedia as their first resource, only resource, or most common resource; they were also more likely to perceive Wikipedia as unreliable.[55]

In 2013, UCSF School of Medicine began to offer fourth-year medical students a month-long elective centered around improving Wikipedia's health-related articles. Between 2013 and 2015, 43 students took part in the course and chose a single health-related article to work on. A study of their contributions by UCSF faculty found that the students expanded their articles, added higher-quality sources, removed lower-quality sources, and improved readability. The study's authors argued that medical schools should encourage students to contribute to Wikipedia, both to improve the quality of its content and to enable students to become better health care educators.[56]

A 2013 study of a particular group of veterinary students found that the majority of these students sought and found medical information on Wikipedia.[57]

A 2015 study of five European medical schools found that students who used Wikipedia for general information were more likely to use it to look up medical information. 16% of students used Wikipedia often for general information, 60% sometimes, and 24% rarely. 12% of students used Wikipedia often for medical information, 55% sometimes, and 33% rarely. Almost all of the students (97%) found inaccurate information on Wikipedia at least once, but less than 20% of them corrected it.[58]

A 2015 study of medical students at Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia, Canada, found that they ranked Google and Wikipedia highly for their accessibility, understandability, and usefulness but ranked PubMed higher for accuracy and trustworthiness.[59]

A 2017 study of online resource use by first-year medical students at Melbourne Medical School found that they used the school's online learning platform most often (daily) and used Google and Wikipedia slightly less often (approximately daily). The students considered the learning platform to be most useful, followed by Google and Wikipedia, which they considered slightly less useful than the learning platform but significantly more useful than Facebook or Google Scholar. They also considered the learning platform to be the most reliable and considered Google and Wikipedia to be significantly less reliable, although they frequently used both websites as a starting point for finding information.[60]

A 2017 study of resources used by medical students during their general surgery clerkship at the University of Florida College of Medicine found that review books were the most commonly used type of study resource, followed by the Internet. Wikipedia was the third-most commonly used resource and the most commonly used Internet resource. The study found no correlation between the type of resource used and students' performance on the NBME surgery subject exam.[61]

Residents

A 2009 study of Internet use by 35 junior doctors in the United Kingdom found that 80% of them used Google and 70% of them used Wikipedia to look up medical information at least once a week, while only 30% used PubMed. Google and Wikipedia were primarily used for background reading, while PubMed and other "best evidence" websites were used to answer specific questions for clinical decision-making.[62]

A 2015 survey of psychiatry residents at Harvard Medical School found that they used online resources twice as often as they used printed resources. The three most commonly used resources were UpToDate, PubMed, and Wikipedia. UpToDate was the most used resource and was considered to be the most trustworthy, while PubMed was the second most used resource and was highly rated as a source of personal learning. Wikipedia was the third most used resource and received the highest ranking for ease of use; however, it was considered the least trustworthy.[63]

Physicians and other health professionals

A 2013 study of 500 European physicians, most of whom were from Austria and Switzerland, found that general search engines like Google were the most popular type of online medical resource, followed by medical research databases like PubMed, followed in third by Wikipedia. 56% of physicians in training (residents) reported using Wikipedia, versus only 37% of physicians who had already completed their training.[64]

A 2014 study of 259 health professionals in Spain found that while 53% of them used the Spanish Wikipedia to look up medical information during work, only 3% of them considered it reliable and only 16% recommended it to their patients. Only 16% had ever edited a Wikipedia article; the most common reasons for not doing were that they did not consider themselves an expert (51%), they preferred to blog or publish peer-reviewed articles (21%), and they were concerned that someone would undo any contributions they made (17%).[65]

Researchers

 
An ontology of Wikidata medical information

Wikipedia and Wikidata are interconnected projects within the Wikimedia ecosystem.[66] Wikidata contains structured data of medical information which is useful in itself, and which also informs information in Wikipedia.[66] The act of putting medical information into the Wikimedia ecosystem changes it in various ways, including making it more accessible, staging it for remixing, and interacting with other information in the Wikimedia platform.[66]

Academic citations

Wikipedia has been inappropriately cited as an authoritative source in many health science journals.[67][68]

Impact on psychological tests

In 2009 a doctor and Wikipedia editor, James Heilman, incorporated public domain images of the Rorschach test into Wikipedia.[69] Psychologists complained that the increased public exposure to these tests devalued their clinical utility, and that public health was harmed as a result.[69]

Nature of contributors

A 2014 interview study found that around half of the editors of health-related content on the English-language Wikipedia are health care professionals, while the other half includes some medical students.[3] An author of this study wrote that this provides "reassurance about the reliability of the website".[3] The study also found that the "core editor community", who actively monitor and edit most health-related articles on the English-language Wikipedia, numbered around 300 people.[70] The study found that people who contribute on these topics do so for a variety of reasons, including a desire to better learn the subjects themselves, and a sense of both responsibility and enjoyment in improving others' access to health information.[70]

A 2016 study found that Wikipedia editors who contributed to articles on designer drugs were most likely to also contribute to articles on illegal drugs and pharmaceutical drugs, implying that they have a background in pharmacology. They were also more likely to contribute to articles on neurological disorders, psychiatric disorders, other diseases, and cell biology; they were least likely to edit articles about popular culture topics or history.[71]

Traffic statistics in health monitoring

Just as Google Flu Trends was able to correlate searches for flu to local outbreaks of flu, page views of Wikipedia articles on flu-related topics have been found to increase in populations experiencing the spread of flu,[72][73] and of other diseases such as dengue fever and tuberculosis.[74][75]

Projects to improve health information on Wikipedia

 
Magazine ad for a Wikipedia campaign.

In 2009 the National Institutes of Health attempted a pilot project for integrating health information into Wikipedia.[76] In 2011, it was reported that Cancer Research UK had started a program whereby some of its staff would edit Wikipedia's cancer-related articles.[77] The International League Against Epilepsy has an ongoing project called Wikipedia Epilepsy project to enhance the quality and knowledge about epilepsy[78] Health organisations like NIOSH,[79] NIHR[80] and Cochrane[81] also started employing wikimedians in residence to coordinate their contributions to Wikipedia.

The University of California, San Francisco has a program for encouraging students to contribute health content to Wikipedia.[82]

See also

References

  1. ^ Laurent, M. R.; Vickers, T. J. (2009). "Seeking Health Information Online: Does Wikipedia Matter?". Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. 16 (4): 471–479. doi:10.1197/jamia.M3059. PMC 2705249. PMID 19390105.
  2. ^ Hellman, James M; Kemmann, Eckhardt; Bonert, Michael; Chatterjee, Anwesh; Ragar, Brent; Beards, Graham M; et al. (31 January 2011). "Wikipedia: A Key Tool for Global Public Health Promotion". Journal of Medical Internet Research. 13 (1): e14. doi:10.2196/jmir.1589. PMC 3221335. PMID 21282098.
  3. ^ a b c Faric, Nusa (5 December 2014). "Around half of Wikipedia's medical editors are experts". Wikimedia Blog.
  4. ^ a b c d e Heilman, James M; West, Andrew G (2015). "Wikipedia and Medicine: Quantifying Readership, Editors, and the Significance of Natural Language". Journal of Medical Internet Research. 17 (3): e62. doi:10.2196/jmir.4069. ISSN 1438-8871. PMC 4376174. PMID 25739399.
  5. ^ Shafee, Thomas; Masukume, Gwinyai; Kipersztok, Lisa; Das, Diptanshu; Häggström, Mikael; Heilman, James (November 2017). "Evolution of Wikipedia's medical content: past, present and future". Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. 71 (11): 1122–1129. doi:10.1136/jech-2016-208601. PMC 5847101. PMID 28847845.
  6. ^ Ledger, Thomas Stephen (September 2017). "Introduction to anatomy on Wikipedia". Journal of Anatomy. 231 (3): 430–432. doi:10.1111/joa.12640. PMC 5554820. PMID 28703298.
  7. ^ a b Devgan, Lara; Powe, Neil; Blakey, Brittony; Makary, Martin (September 2007). "Wiki-Surgery? Internal validity of Wikipedia as a medical and surgical reference". Journal of the American College of Surgeons. 205 (3): S76–S77. doi:10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2007.06.190.
  8. ^ Clauson, K. A; Polen, H. H; Boulos, M. N K.; Dzenowagis, J. H (18 November 2008). "Scope, Completeness, and Accuracy of Drug Information in Wikipedia". Annals of Pharmacotherapy. 42 (12): 1814–1821. doi:10.1345/aph.1L474. PMID 19017825. S2CID 2072846.
  9. ^ Leithner A, Maurer-Ertl W, Glehr M, Friesenbichler J, Leithner K, Windhager R (July–August 2010). "Wikipedia and osteosarcoma: a trustworthy patients' information?". Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. 17 (4): 373–374. doi:10.1136/jamia.2010.004507. PMC 2995655. PMID 20595302.
  10. ^ Haigh, CA (February 2011). "Wikipedia as an evidence source for nursing and healthcare students". Nurse Education Today. 31 (2): 135–9. doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2010.05.004. PMID 20646799.
  11. ^ Kupferberg, N; Protus, BM (October 2011). "Accuracy and completeness of drug information in Wikipedia: an assessment". Journal of the Medical Library Association. 99 (4): 310–3. doi:10.3163/1536-5050.99.4.010. PMC 3193353. PMID 22022226.
  12. ^ Lavsa, Stacey M.; Corman, Shelby L.; Culley, Colleen M.; Pummer, Tara L. (April 2011). "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.
  13. ^ Phillips, Jennifer; Lam, Connie; Palmisano, Lisa (2014). "Analysis of the accuracy and readability of herbal supplement information on Wikipedia". Journal of the American Pharmacists Association. 54 (4): 406–14. doi:10.1331/JAPhA.2014.13181. ISSN 1544-3191. PMID 25063262.
  14. ^ Archambault, Patrick M; Belt, Tom H van de; III, Francisco J Grajales; Faber, Marjan J; Kuziemsky, Craig E; Gagnon, Susie; Bilodeau, Andrea; Rioux, Simon; Nelen, Willianne LDM (8 October 2013). "Wikis and Collaborative Writing Applications in Health Care: A Scoping Review". Journal of Medical Internet Research. 15 (10): e210. doi:10.2196/jmir.2787. PMC 3929050. PMID 24103318.
  15. ^ Koo, Malcolm (2014). "Complementary and Alternative Medicine on Wikipedia: Opportunities for Improvement". Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine. 2014: 105186. doi:10.1155/2014/105186. PMC 4016830. PMID 24864148.
  16. ^ Hasty, Robert; Garvalosa, Ryan; Barbato, Vincenzo; Valdes, Pedro; Powers, David; Hernandez, Emmanuel; et al. (2014). "Wikipedia vs Peer-Reviewed Medical Literature for Information About the 10 Most Costly Medical Conditions". The Journal of the American Osteopathic Association. 114 (5): 368–373. doi:10.7556/jaoa.2014.035. ISSN 0098-6151. PMID 24778001.
  17. ^ Hasty, Robert (8 May 2014). "Dr. Robert Hasty - Wikipedia vs. Peer-Reviewed Medical Articles". youtube.com. Retrieved 4 June 2014.
  18. ^ Stephens, Pippa (28 May 2014). "Trust your doctor, not Wikipedia, say scientists". bbc.com. Retrieved 4 June 2014.
  19. ^ Kedmey, Dan (27 May 2014). "Don't Trust Wikipedia When It Comes to Your Health, Study Says". time.com. Retrieved 4 June 2014.
  20. ^ Gagnon, Tiffany (28 May 2014). "Are Wikipedia Health Tips Making You Sick?". Men's Fitness. Retrieved 4 June 2014.
  21. ^ Dillner, Luisa (1 June 2014). "Is Wikipedia a reliable source for medical advice?". theguardian.com. Retrieved 4 June 2014.
  22. ^ Chatterjee, Anwesh; Cooke, Robin M.T.; Furst, Ian; Heilman, James (23 June 2014). . cochrane.org. Archived from the original on 2 July 2014. Retrieved 23 June 2014.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link)
  23. ^ Pippa Stephens – Health reporter – BBC News – 28 May 2014 Trust your doctor, not Wikipedia, say scientists (Accessed on 14 March 2017)
  24. ^ a b Hwang, Thomas J.; Bourgeois, Florence T.; Seeger, John D. (2014). "Drug Safety in the Digital Age". New England Journal of Medicine. 370 (26): 2460–2462. doi:10.1056/NEJMp1401767. ISSN 0028-4793. PMID 24963564.
  25. ^ Kräenbring, Jona; Monzon Penza, Tika; Gutmann, Joanna; Muehlich, Susanne; Zolk, Oliver; Wojnowski, Leszek; Maas, Renke; Engelhardt, Stefan; Sarikas, Antonio (24 September 2014). "Accuracy and Completeness of Drug Information in Wikipedia: A Comparison with Standard Textbooks of Pharmacology". PLOS ONE. 9 (9): e106930. Bibcode:2014PLoSO...9j6930K. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0106930. PMC 4174509. PMID 25250889.  
  26. ^ Venkatraman, Anand; Garg, Neetika (2015). "Greater freedom of speech on Web 2.0 correlates with dominance of views linking vaccines to autism". Vaccines. 17 (33): 1422–1425. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.01.078. PMID 25665960.
  27. ^ Reilly, Timothy; Jackson, William; Berger, Victoria; Candelario, Danielle (November 2016). "Accuracy and completeness of drug information in Wikipedia medication monographs". Journal of the American Pharmacists Association. 57 (2): 193–196.e1. doi:10.1016/j.japh.2016.10.007. PMID 27866956.
  28. ^ Candelario, Danielle M.; Vazquez, Victoria; Jackson, William; Reilly, Timothy. "Completeness, accuracy, and readability of Wikipedia as a reference for patient medication information". Journal of the American Pharmacists Association. 57 (2): 197–200.e1. doi:10.1016/j.japh.2016.12.063. PMID 28139458.
  29. ^ Reavley, N. J.; Mackinnon, A. J.; Morgan, A. J.; Alvarez-Jimenez, M.; Hetrick, S. E.; Killackey, E.; Nelson, B.; Purcell, R.; Yap, M. B. H. (2012). "Quality of information sources about mental disorders: a comparison of Wikipedia with centrally controlled web and printed sources". Psychological Medicine. 42 (8): 1753–1762. doi:10.1017/S003329171100287X. hdl:11343/59260. ISSN 0033-2917. PMID 22166182. S2CID 13329595.
  30. ^ Thomas, G. R.; Eng, L.; De Wolff, J. F.; Grover, S. C. (2013). "An Evaluation of Wikipedia as a Resource for Patient Education in Nephrology". Seminars in Dialysis. 26 (2): 159–63. doi:10.1111/sdi.12059. PMID 23432369. S2CID 23361618.
  31. ^ Brigo, F; Erro, R (18 January 2015). "The readability of the English Wikipedia article on Parkinson's disease". Neurological Sciences. 36 (6): 1045–6. doi:10.1007/s10072-015-2077-5. PMID 25596713. S2CID 23254630.
  32. ^ Brigo, F; Otte, WM; Igwe, SC; Tezzon, F; Nardone, R (16 January 2015). "Clearly written, easily comprehended? The readability of websites providing information on epilepsy". Epilepsy & Behavior. 44C: 35–39. doi:10.1016/j.yebeh.2014.12.029. PMID 25601720. S2CID 24972881.
  33. ^ Punia, Vineet; Dagar, Anjali; Agarwal, Nitin; He, Wenzhuan; Hillen, Machteld (December 2014). "Comparison of neurological healthcare oriented educational resources for patients on the internet". Journal of Clinical Neuroscience. 21 (12): 2179–2183. doi:10.1016/j.jocn.2014.05.043. PMID 25194822. S2CID 45947522.
  34. ^ Azer, Samy A. (2015). "Is Wikipedia a reliable learning resource for medical students? Evaluating respiratory topics". Advances in Physiology Education. 39 (1): 5–14±. doi:10.1152/advan.00110.2014. ISSN 1043-4046. PMID 25727464.
  35. ^ Azer, SA; AlSwaidan, NM; Alshwairikh, LA; AlShammari, JM (6 October 2015). "Accuracy and readability of cardiovascular entries on Wikipedia: are they reliable learning resources for medical students?". BMJ Open. 5 (10): e008187. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008187. PMC 4606442. PMID 26443650.  
  36. ^ Hutchinson, N; Baird, GL; Garg, M (29 January 2016). "Examining the reading level of Internet medical information for common Internal Medicine diagnoses". The American Journal of Medicine. 129 (6): 637–9. doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2016.01.008. PMID 26829438.
  37. ^ Saparova, D; Nolan, NS (January 2016). "Evaluating the appropriateness of electronic information resources for learning". Journal of the Medical Library Association. 104 (1): 24–32. doi:10.3163/1536-5050.104.1.004. PMC 4722638. PMID 26807049.
  38. ^ Watad, Abdulla; Bragazzi, Nicola Luigi; Brigo, Francesco; Sharif, Kassem; Amital, Howard; McGonagle, Dennis; Shoenfeld, Yehuda; Adawi, Mohammad (2017). "Readability of Wikipedia Pages on Autoimmune Disorders: Systematic Quantitative Assessment". Journal of Medical Internet Research. 19 (7): e260. doi:10.2196/jmir.8225. PMC 5539385. PMID 28720555.
  39. ^ Modiria, Omen; Guhab, Daipayan; Alotaibib, Naif M.; Ibrahim, George M.; Lipsmanb, Nor; Fallahc, Aria (2018). "Readability and quality of wikipedia pages on neurosurgical topics". Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery. 166: 66–70. doi:10.1016/j.clineuro.2018.01.021. PMID 29408776. S2CID 3544057.
  40. ^ a b Williams-Grut, Oscar (3 October 2014). "Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales: 'Free Wiki could save thousands of lives'". The Independent. London: INM. ISSN 0951-9467. OCLC 185201487. Archived from the original on 9 May 2022. Retrieved 7 October 2014.
  41. ^ a b Cohen, Noam (26 October 2014). "Wikipedia Emerges as Trusted Internet Source for Ebola Information". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 27 October 2014.
  42. ^ a b Sifferlin, Alexandra (25 March 2014). "Wikipedia Founder Sticks It To 'Lunatic' Holistic Healers". Time. Retrieved 26 March 2014.
  43. ^ Hay Newman, Lily (27 March 2014) Jimmy Wales Gets Real, and Sassy, About Wikipedia's Holistic Healing Coverage, Slate (magazine) Retrieved 23 November 2014
  44. ^ ACEP's Position Statement on Wikipedia energypsych.org Retrieved 23 November 2014
  45. ^ Ullman, Dana (10 October 2014). "Dysfunction at Wikipedia on Homeopathic Medicine". The Huffington Post. Retrieved 23 November 2014.
  46. ^ Fox, S.; Jones, S. (11 June 2009). . Washington, DC: Pew Internet and American Life Project (cited 6 October 2010). Archived from the original on 12 January 2014. Retrieved 12 October 2015.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: location (link)
  47. ^ "Health Fact Sheet". Pew Research Center: Internet Research. 2013.
  48. ^ Makovsky Health (9 September 2013). . makovsky.com. Archived from the original on 13 October 2012. Retrieved 2 October 2013.
  49. ^ Note – sketchy link requires registration. IMS Health (2014). "The use of Wikipedia in Health Care". Engaging patients through social media Is healthcare ready for empowered and digitally demanding patients?. IMS Health. pp. 16–26. Retrieved 22 January 2014. Further cited in
    • NPR staff (8 February 2014). "Dr. Wikipedia: The 'Double-Edged Sword' Of Crowd-Sourced Medicine". npr.org. NPR. Retrieved 10 February 2014.
    • Feltman, Rachel (28 January 2014). "America's future doctors are starting their careers by saving Wikipedia". qz.com. Retrieved 5 February 2014.
    • Tucker, Miriam E. (5 February 2014). "Doctors, Not Just Patients, Use Wikipedia, Too: IMS Report". Medscape. Retrieved 7 February 2014.
    • Beck, Julie (5 March 2014). "Doctors' #1 Source for Healthcare Information: Wikipedia". theatlantic.com. Retrieved 5 March 2014.
  50. ^ Laurent, M. R.; Vickers, T. J. (1 July 2009). "Seeking Health Information Online: Does Wikipedia Matter?". Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. 16 (4): 471–479. doi:10.1197/jamia.M3059. PMC 2705249. PMID 19390105.
  51. ^ Godlee, F. (27 March 2014). "Unethical, a guilty secret, and still crazy after all these years". BMJ. 348 (mar27 1): g2396. doi:10.1136/bmj.g2396.
  52. ^ Brigo, Francesco; Igwe, Stanley C.; Nardone, Raffaele; Lochner, Piergiorgio; Tezzon, Frediano; Otte, Willem M. (July 2015). "Wikipedia and neurological disorders". Journal of Clinical Neuroscience. 22 (7): 1170–1172. doi:10.1016/j.jocn.2015.02.006. PMID 25890773. S2CID 25821260.
  53. ^ Morris, Nathaniel P. (18 November 2013). "Wikipedia's role in medical education brings awesome promise — and a few risks". bostonglobe.com. Retrieved 21 November 2013.
  54. ^ Teunis, Teun (March 2013). "The Wikipedia Guide to Medicine Could the Online Encyclopaedia Provide the Basis for a New Medical School Curriculum?". Student BMJ. 21: 16–17. doi:10.1136/sbmj.f1091. S2CID 164238600.
  55. ^ Allahwala, Usaid K.; Nadkarni, Aniket; Sebaratnam, Deshan F. (2013). "Wikipedia use amongst medical students – New insights into the digital revolution". Medical Teacher. 35 (4): 337. doi:10.3109/0142159X.2012.737064. ISSN 0142-159X. PMID 23137251. S2CID 39910202.
  56. ^ Azzam, A; Bresler, D; Leon, A; Maggio, L; Whitaker, E; Heilman, J; Orlowitz, J; Swisher, V; Rasberry, L; Otoide, K; Trotter, F; Ross, W; McCue, JD (February 2017). "Why Medical Schools Should Embrace Wikipedia: Final-Year Medical Student Contributions to Wikipedia Articles for Academic Credit at One School". Academic Medicine. 92 (2): 194–200. doi:10.1097/ACM.0000000000001381. PMC 5265689. PMID 27627633.
  57. ^ Kolski, D; Arlt, S; Birk, S; Heuwieser, W (2013). "Use and acceptance of Wiki systems for students of veterinary medicine". GMS Zeitschrift für Medizinische Ausbildung. 30 (1): Doc10. doi:10.3205/zma000853. PMC 3589678. PMID 23467415.
  58. ^ Herbert, Verena G.; Frings, Andreas; Rehatschek, Herwig; Richard, Gilbert; Leithner, Andreas (2015). "Wikipedia – challenges and new horizons in enhancing medical education". BMC Medical Education. 15 (32): 32. doi:10.1186/s12909-015-0309-2. PMC 4384304. PMID 25879421.
  59. ^ O'Carroll AE, West EP, Dooley D, Gordon KE (June 2015). "Information-Seeking Behaviors of Medical Students: A Cross-Sectional Web-Based Survey". JMIR Medical Education. 1 (1): E4. doi:10.2196/mededu.4267. PMC 5041342. PMID 27731842.
  60. ^ Judd, Terry; Elliott, Kristine (2017). "Selection and Use of Online Learning Resources by First-Year Medical Students: Cross-Sectional Study". JMIR Medical Education. 3 (2): e17. doi:10.2196/mededu.7382. PMC 5643842. PMID 28970187.
  61. ^ Taylor, Janice A.; Shaw, Christiana M.; Tan, Sanda A.; Falcone, John L. (2017). "Are the kids alright? Review books and the internet as the most common study resources for the general surgery clerkship". The American Journal of Surgery. 215 (1): 191–195. doi:10.1016/j.amjsurg.2017.01.036. PMID 28237045.
  62. ^ Hughes, Benjamin; Joshi, Indra; Lemonde, Hugh; Wareham, Jonathan (October 2009). "Junior physician's use of Web 2.0 for information seeking and medical education: A qualitative study". International Journal of Medical Informatics. 78 (10): 645–655. doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2009.04.008. PMID 19501017.
  63. ^ Torous, John; Franzen, Jamie; O’Connor, Ryan; Mathew, Ian; Keshavan, Matcher; Kitts, Robert; Boland, Robert (2015). "Psychiatry Residents' Use of Educational Websites: A Pilot Survey Study". Academic Psychiatry. 39 (6): 630–633. doi:10.1007/s40596-015-0335-8. PMID 26077007. S2CID 207500506.
  64. ^ Fritz M, Gschwandtner M, Stefanov V, Hanbury A, Samwald M (June 2013). "Utilization and Perceived Problems of Online Medical Resources and Search Tools Among Different Groups of European Physicians". Journal of Medical Internet Research. 15 (6): e122. doi:10.2196/jmir.2436. PMC 3713956. PMID 23803299.
  65. ^ Santillán, Azucena; Máñez, Miguel Ángel; Meijome, Xose Manuel (2014). "Uso de Wikipedia por los profesionales de la salud" [Use of Wikipedia by health professionals]. Gaceta Sanitaria (in Spanish). 28 (6): 522. doi:10.1016/j.gaceta.2014.04.014. PMID 25087118.
  66. ^ a b c Waagmeester, Andra; Stupp, Gregory; Burgstaller-Muehlbacher, Sebastian; Good, Benjamin M; Griffith, Malachi; Griffith, Obi L; Hanspers, Kristina; Hermjakob, Henning; Hudson, Toby S; Hybiske, Kevin; Keating, Sarah M; Manske, Magnus; Mayers, Michael; Mietchen, Daniel; Mitraka, Elvira; Pico, Alexander R; Putman, Timothy; Riutta, Anders; Queralt-Rosinach, Nuria; Schriml, Lynn M; Shafee, Thomas; Slenter, Denise; Stephan, Ralf; Thornton, Katherine; Tsueng, Ginger; Tu, Roger; Ul-Hasan, Sabah; Willighagen, Egon; Wu, Chunlei; Su, Andrew I (17 March 2020). "Wikidata as a knowledge graph for the life sciences". eLife. 9: e52614. doi:10.7554/eLife.52614.
  67. ^ Bould, M. D.; Hladkowicz, E. S.; Pigford, A.-A. E.; Ufholz, L.-A.; Postonogova, T.; Shin, E.; Boet, S. (6 March 2014). "References that anyone can edit: review of Wikipedia citations in peer reviewed health science literature". BMJ. 348 (mar05 4): g1585. doi:10.1136/bmj.g1585. PMC 3944683. PMID 24603564.
  68. ^ Blackwell, Tom (12 March 2014). "'It's against all principles of scientific reporting': Thousands of medical papers cite Wikipedia, study says". National Post. Archived from the original on 13 March 2014. Retrieved 13 March 2014.
  69. ^ a b
    • Cohen, Noam (28 July 2009). "Has Wikipedia Created a Rorschach Cheat Sheet? Analyze That". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2 October 2013.
    • Lilienfeld, Scott (3 August 2009). "The Rorschach-Wikipedia Kerfuffle Continues". Psychology Today. Retrieved 2 October 2013.
    • White, Patrick (29 July 2009). "Rorschach and Wikipedia: The battle of the inkblots". The Globe and Mail. Retrieved 2 October 2013.
    • Schultz, D. S.; Brabender, V. M. (2013). "More Challenges Since Wikipedia: The Effects of Exposure to Internet Information About the Rorschach on Selected Comprehensive System Variables". Journal of Personality Assessment. 95 (2): 149–158. doi:10.1080/00223891.2012.725438. PMID 23030722. S2CID 21422063.
  70. ^ a b Farič, Nuša; Potts, Henry WW (2014). "Motivations for Contributing to Health-Related Articles on Wikipedia: An Interview Study". Journal of Medical Internet Research. 16 (12): e260. doi:10.2196/jmir.3569. ISSN 1438-8871. PMC 4275502. PMID 25498308.
  71. ^ Dijkstra, Louis J.; Krieg, Lisa J. (2016). "From MDMA to Lady Gaga: Expertise and contribution behavior of editing communities on Wikipedia". Procedia Computer Science. 1: 96–106. arXiv:1005.5384. doi:10.1016/j.procs.2016.11.013.
  72. ^ McIver, David J.; Brownstein, John S.; Salathé, Marcel (17 April 2014). "Wikipedia Usage Estimates Prevalence of Influenza-Like Illness in the United States in Near Real-Time". PLOS Computational Biology. 10 (4): e1003581. Bibcode:2014PLSCB..10E3581M. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003581. PMC 3990502. PMID 24743682.
  73. ^ "How Wikipedia Data Is Revolutionizing Flu Forecasting". MIT Technology Review. 3 November 2014. Retrieved 4 November 2014.
  74. ^ Generous, Nicholas; Fairchild, Geoffrey; Deshpande, Alina; Del Valle, Sara Y.; Priedhorsky, Reid; Salathé, Marcel (13 November 2014). "Global Disease Monitoring and Forecasting with Wikipedia". PLOS Computational Biology. 10 (11): e1003892. arXiv:1405.3612. Bibcode:2014PLSCB..10E3892G. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003892. PMC 4231164. PMID 25392913.
  75. ^ "Wikipedia 'foresees virus outbreaks'". BBC News. 13 November 2014. Retrieved 14 November 2014.
  76. ^ *Madrigal, Alexis (21 July 2009). "Wikipedia Teaches NIH Scientists Wiki Culture – Wired Science". Wired. Retrieved 2 October 2013.
    • Garnett, Carla (4 September 2009). . NIH Record. Archived from the original on 1 April 2012. Retrieved 4 June 2012.
  77. ^ "Cancer charity 'tidies' Wikipedia". BBC News. 4 April 2011. Retrieved 6 November 2014.
  78. ^ "The ILAE Wikipedia Epilepsy Project". www.ILAE.ORG.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  79. ^ "Collaboration with Wikipedia". Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved 14 January 2022.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  80. ^ "National Institute for Health Research launches Wikimedian in Residence in collaboration with Wikimedia UK". WMUK. 10 December 2021. Retrieved 14 January 2022.
  81. ^ "Improving Health-Related Content on Wikipedia". community.cochrane.org. Retrieved 14 January 2022.
  82. ^
    • Cohen, Noam (29 September 2013). "Editing Wikipedia Pages for Med School Credit". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 1 October 2013.
    • Bunim, Juliana (26 September 2013). "UCSF First U.S. Medical School to Offer Credit For Wikipedia Articles". ucsf.edu. Retrieved 1 October 2013.
    • Beck, Julie (1 October 2013). "Should I Be Getting Health Information From Wikipedia?". The Atlantic. Retrieved 2 October 2013.

January 13, 2023
health, information, wikipedia, wikipedia, online, encyclopedia, since, late, 2000s, served, popular, source, health, information, both, laypersons, many, cases, health, care, practitioners, health, related, articles, wikipedia, popularly, accessed, results, f. The Wikipedia online encyclopedia has since the late 2000s served as a popular source for health information for both laypersons and in many cases health care practitioners Health related articles on Wikipedia are popularly accessed as results from search engines which frequently deliver links to Wikipedia articles 1 Independent assessments have been made of the number and demographics of people who seek health information on Wikipedia the scope of health information on Wikipedia and the quality of the information on Wikipedia 2 Popular medical websites in July 2019 The English Wikipedia was estimated in 2014 to hold around 25 000 articles on health related topics 3 Across Wikipedia encyclopedias in all languages there were 155 000 health articles using 950 000 citations to sources and which collectively received 4 8 billion pageviews in 2013 4 This amount of traffic makes Wikipedia one of the most consulted health resources in the world or perhaps the most consulted resource 4 Contents 1 Amount of health content 2 Academic studies 2 1 Accuracy and usefulness 2 2 Readability 3 Other views 3 1 Alternative medicine 4 Usage 4 1 General public 4 2 Medical students 4 3 Residents 4 4 Physicians and other health professionals 4 5 Researchers 4 6 Academic citations 4 7 Impact on psychological tests 5 Nature of contributors 6 Traffic statistics in health monitoring 7 Projects to improve health information on Wikipedia 8 See also 9 ReferencesAmount of health content Edit Number of medical articles added to Wikipedia per half year 2011 to 2020 As of the end of 2013 the English Wikipedia had 29 072 medical articles while across all language versions of Wikipedia there were 155 805 medical articles 4 As of March 2017 the English Wikipedia had 30 000 medical articles while there were 164 000 medical articles in other languages 5 As of 2017 there were about 6 000 anatomy articles on the English Wikipedia 6 these are not classified as medical articles in Wikipedia s categorization scheme and thus are not included in the 30 000 figure above 4 Academic studies EditSee also Wikipedia Academic studies of health information on Wikipedia Accuracy and usefulness Edit A 2007 study examined a sample of Wikipedia pages about the most frequently performed surgical procedures in the United States and found that 85 7 of them were appropriate for patients and that these articles had a remarkably high level of internal validity 7 However the same study also raised concerns about Wikipedia s completeness noting that only 62 9 of the articles examined were free of critical omissions 7 A 2008 study reported that drug information on Wikipedia has a more narrow scope is less complete and has more errors of omission than did such information on the traditionally edited online database Medscape Drug Reference 8 A 2010 study found that Wikipedia s article on osteosarcoma was of decent quality but that the National Cancer Institute NCI s page was better The authors concluded that Wikipedia should include external links to higher quality sources 9 A 2011 assessment of 50 medical articles on Wikipedia found that 56 of the references cited on these pages could be considered reputable and that each entry contained 29 reputable sources on average 10 A 2011 study examined Wikipedia pages about five statins and concluded that these pages did not contain incorrect or misleading information but that they were often missing information about drug interactions and contraindications to use 11 Another 2011 study examining Wikipedia articles on the 20 most widely prescribed drugs found that seven of these articles did not have any references and concluded that Wikipedia does not provide consistently accurate complete and referenced medication information 12 An assessment of Wikipedia articles in 2012 on dietary supplements found that Wikipedia articles were frequently incomplete of variable quality and sometimes inconsistent with reputable sources of information on these products 13 A 2013 scoping review published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research summarized the existing evidence about the use of wikis Wikipedia and other collaborative writing applications in health care and found that the available research publications were observational reports rather than the primary research studies which would be necessary to begin drawing conclusions 14 A 2014 study that examined 97 Wikipedia articles about complementary and alternative medicine CAM found that 4 of them had attained Good article status and that CAM articles on Wikipedia tended to be significantly shorter than those about conventional therapies 15 In May 2014 The Journal of the American Osteopathic Association published an article which concluded that Most Wikipedia articles for the 10 costliest conditions in the United States contain errors compared with standard peer reviewed sources 16 17 Following this paper many other media sources reported that readers should not trust Wikipedia for medical information 18 19 20 21 Some of Wikipedia s prominent health content contributors defended Wikipedia and criticized the study 22 noting that Wikipedia is not about truth but about verifiability That is the Wikipedians contended that since the mission of Wikipedia is to reflect what mainstream sources such as UK s National Institute of Health Care Excellence say about any given topic Wikipedia will be just as inaccurate as those sources Since Wikipedia s policy is to state these inaccuracies that exist in its sources as though they were true even when editors know they are not true Wikipedians feel that pointing out how inaccurate Wikipedia s health articles are completely misses the point of Wikipedia since Wikipedia is not about truth but instead about verifiability Wikipedians also noted that the small sample size may have skewed results in either direction and that the study may have understated Wikipedia s level of inaccuracy by not accounting for the important information that Wikipedia articles leave out 23 A 2014 study found that when the FDA issues new safety warnings about drugs in 41 of cases reviewed Wikipedia articles about those drugs were updated to give the new safety information within two weeks 24 Another 23 of Wikipedia drug articles were updated to give this information within an average of about 40 days but 36 of articles are not updated with this information within a year 24 A 2014 comparison between selected drug information from pharmacology textbooks and comparable information on the English language and German language Wikipedias found that the drug information in Wikipedia covers most of what is essential for undergraduate pharmacology studies and that it is accurate 25 A 2015 study comparing the coverage of the autism vaccine controversy on several websites found that Wikipedia s articles were broadly pro vaccine The study attributed this pro vaccine stance to this highly controversial topic attracting committed editors who strictly enforce the requirements for academic references 26 A 2016 study found that drug information on Wikipedia was less accurate and complete than that on the medical reference site Micromedex 27 A 2017 study compared the accuracy of Wikipedia articles about the 33 most popular medications with medication guides to the accuracy of their medication guides The study found that the Wikipedia articles were generally less accurate than were the corresponding medication guides 28 Readability Edit In 2012 Wikipedia s articles on depression and schizophrenia were compared to coverage in Encyclopaedia Britannica and a psychiatry textbook and evaluated for their accuracy up to dateness breadth of coverage referencing and readability Wikipedia was ranked highly across all categories except for readability 29 A 2013 review of nephrology content on Wikipedia found it to be a comprehensive and fairly reliable medical resource for nephrology patients that is written at a college reading level 30 A 2014 study found that Wikipedia s article on Parkinson s disease had a Flesch reading ease score of 30 31 meaning that it was difficult to read 31 The readability of Wikipedia s articles on epilepsy was evaluated and found to be low indicating that they were difficult to read 32 Another study found that Wikipedia s information about neurological diseases was significantly more difficult to read than the information in the American Academy of Neurology s patient brochures the Mayo Clinic s website or MedlinePlus 33 Another 2015 study this one authored by Samy Azer reported that Wikipedia should not be used to learn about concepts related to pulmonology students 34 Another 2015 study by Azer found that Wikipedia entries about cardiovascular diseases were not aimed at a medical audience and were mainly inaccurate due to errors of omission 35 A 2016 study found that Wikipedia information about common internal medicine diagnoses was written at a higher grade level than any of the four other sites studied NIH WebMD Mayo Clinic and diagnosis specific websites 36 In contrast another study published the same year found that medical students reading about three unstudied diseases on AccessMedicine and Wikipedia experienced less mental effort than did readers of the same diseases on UpToDate 37 A 2017 study evaluating 134 Wikipedia articles on autoimmune diseases found that they were very difficult to read and required at least a university graduate reading level The study s authors were concerned by Wikipedia s low readability as people with autoimmune disorders often use Wikipedia to research their condition 38 A 2018 study evaluating 55 Wikipedia articles on neurosurgical topics found that they were significantly more difficult to read than the American Association of Neurological Surgeons s patient information articles although both Wikipedia s articles and the AANS articles required a college reading level 39 Other views EditWikipedia co founder Jimmy Wales has said that lack of health information increases preventable deaths in emerging markets and that health information from Wikipedia can improve community health 40 Wales presented the Wikipedia Zero project as a channel for delivering health information into places where people have difficulty accessing online information 40 As a result of public interest in the 2014 Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa Wikipedia became a popular source of information on Ebola 41 Doctors who were Wikipedia contributors said that Wikipedia s quality made it useful 41 Alternative medicine Edit People who promote alternative medicine have complained that Wikipedia negatively portrays holistic health treatments including energy medicine Emotional Freedom Techniques Thought Field Therapy and Tapas Acupressure Technique 42 In response Wales has stated If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals that is to say if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately 42 43 44 Similar concerns have been raised regarding its coverage of homeopathy 45 Wikipedia policy for articles that could reasonably be perceived as relating to human health comes under the policy for medicine related articles which is science based Usage EditThe majority of people in the United States use the internet as a source of health information 46 The third most common activity for information seeking online is looking up health or medical information 47 One 2013 study suggested that 22 of healthcare searches online direct users to Wikipedia 48 Wikipedia was described in 2014 in a report published by IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics as the leading single source of healthcare information for patients and healthcare professionals 49 According to the same report 50 of U S physicians that go online for professional purposes are using Wikipedia to access information These facts were referenced on page 17 from the same research report published by IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics on Engaging Patients Through Social Media and were recirculated further in popular media outlets and peer reviewed articles The IMS report provides a citation to an undated research report in Taking the Pulse by Manhattan Research which is unavailable using most library research databasesIn July 2014 Wikipedia s medical content in all languages was viewed more often than any other popular healthcare website including the NIH WebMD Mayo Clinic NHS WHO and UpToDate 4 50 Some doctors have described their use of Wikipedia as a guilty secret 51 General public Edit A 2015 study compared the popularity of Wikipedia s articles on ten of the most common neurological disorders over a 90 day period from April 2014 to July 2014 it found that there was no relationship between the incidence or prevalence of a neurological disorder and the number of page views it received For example Wikipedia s article on multiple sclerosis was far more popular than its articles on more common disorders like migraine epilepsy or stroke The authors theorized that this might be due to the increasing prevalence of MRI scans which has led to an increase in incidental findings of white matter lesions Although most of these lesions have nothing to do with multiple sclerosis they may lead patients relatives and even physicians to perform Internet searches on multiple sclerosis which may lead them to the Wikipedia article 52 Medical students Edit Wikipedia s health information has been described as transforming how our next doctors learn medicine 53 Various commentators in health education have said that Wikipedia is popular and convenient for medical students 54 A 2013 study done at a single Australian medical school showed that 97 of students used Wikipedia to study medicine with the most common reasons being ease of access and ease of understanding There was no relationship between a student s year in medical school and his or her use of Wikipedia but students further along in medical school were less likely to use Wikipedia as their first resource only resource or most common resource they were also more likely to perceive Wikipedia as unreliable 55 In 2013 UCSF School of Medicine began to offer fourth year medical students a month long elective centered around improving Wikipedia s health related articles Between 2013 and 2015 43 students took part in the course and chose a single health related article to work on A study of their contributions by UCSF faculty found that the students expanded their articles added higher quality sources removed lower quality sources and improved readability The study s authors argued that medical schools should encourage students to contribute to Wikipedia both to improve the quality of its content and to enable students to become better health care educators 56 A 2013 study of a particular group of veterinary students found that the majority of these students sought and found medical information on Wikipedia 57 A 2015 study of five European medical schools found that students who used Wikipedia for general information were more likely to use it to look up medical information 16 of students used Wikipedia often for general information 60 sometimes and 24 rarely 12 of students used Wikipedia often for medical information 55 sometimes and 33 rarely Almost all of the students 97 found inaccurate information on Wikipedia at least once but less than 20 of them corrected it 58 A 2015 study of medical students at Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia Canada found that they ranked Google and Wikipedia highly for their accessibility understandability and usefulness but ranked PubMed higher for accuracy and trustworthiness 59 A 2017 study of online resource use by first year medical students at Melbourne Medical School found that they used the school s online learning platform most often daily and used Google and Wikipedia slightly less often approximately daily The students considered the learning platform to be most useful followed by Google and Wikipedia which they considered slightly less useful than the learning platform but significantly more useful than Facebook or Google Scholar They also considered the learning platform to be the most reliable and considered Google and Wikipedia to be significantly less reliable although they frequently used both websites as a starting point for finding information 60 A 2017 study of resources used by medical students during their general surgery clerkship at the University of Florida College of Medicine found that review books were the most commonly used type of study resource followed by the Internet Wikipedia was the third most commonly used resource and the most commonly used Internet resource The study found no correlation between the type of resource used and students performance on the NBME surgery subject exam 61 Residents Edit A 2009 study of Internet use by 35 junior doctors in the United Kingdom found that 80 of them used Google and 70 of them used Wikipedia to look up medical information at least once a week while only 30 used PubMed Google and Wikipedia were primarily used for background reading while PubMed and other best evidence websites were used to answer specific questions for clinical decision making 62 A 2015 survey of psychiatry residents at Harvard Medical School found that they used online resources twice as often as they used printed resources The three most commonly used resources were UpToDate PubMed and Wikipedia UpToDate was the most used resource and was considered to be the most trustworthy while PubMed was the second most used resource and was highly rated as a source of personal learning Wikipedia was the third most used resource and received the highest ranking for ease of use however it was considered the least trustworthy 63 Physicians and other health professionals Edit A 2013 study of 500 European physicians most of whom were from Austria and Switzerland found that general search engines like Google were the most popular type of online medical resource followed by medical research databases like PubMed followed in third by Wikipedia 56 of physicians in training residents reported using Wikipedia versus only 37 of physicians who had already completed their training 64 A 2014 study of 259 health professionals in Spain found that while 53 of them used the Spanish Wikipedia to look up medical information during work only 3 of them considered it reliable and only 16 recommended it to their patients Only 16 had ever edited a Wikipedia article the most common reasons for not doing were that they did not consider themselves an expert 51 they preferred to blog or publish peer reviewed articles 21 and they were concerned that someone would undo any contributions they made 17 65 Researchers Edit An ontology of Wikidata medical information Wikipedia and Wikidata are interconnected projects within the Wikimedia ecosystem 66 Wikidata contains structured data of medical information which is useful in itself and which also informs information in Wikipedia 66 The act of putting medical information into the Wikimedia ecosystem changes it in various ways including making it more accessible staging it for remixing and interacting with other information in the Wikimedia platform 66 Academic citations Edit Wikipedia has been inappropriately cited as an authoritative source in many health science journals 67 68 Impact on psychological tests Edit In 2009 a doctor and Wikipedia editor James Heilman incorporated public domain images of the Rorschach test into Wikipedia 69 Psychologists complained that the increased public exposure to these tests devalued their clinical utility and that public health was harmed as a result 69 Nature of contributors EditA 2014 interview study found that around half of the editors of health related content on the English language Wikipedia are health care professionals while the other half includes some medical students 3 An author of this study wrote that this provides reassurance about the reliability of the website 3 The study also found that the core editor community who actively monitor and edit most health related articles on the English language Wikipedia numbered around 300 people 70 The study found that people who contribute on these topics do so for a variety of reasons including a desire to better learn the subjects themselves and a sense of both responsibility and enjoyment in improving others access to health information 70 A 2016 study found that Wikipedia editors who contributed to articles on designer drugs were most likely to also contribute to articles on illegal drugs and pharmaceutical drugs implying that they have a background in pharmacology They were also more likely to contribute to articles on neurological disorders psychiatric disorders other diseases and cell biology they were least likely to edit articles about popular culture topics or history 71 Traffic statistics in health monitoring EditJust as Google Flu Trends was able to correlate searches for flu to local outbreaks of flu page views of Wikipedia articles on flu related topics have been found to increase in populations experiencing the spread of flu 72 73 and of other diseases such as dengue fever and tuberculosis 74 75 Projects to improve health information on Wikipedia Edit Magazine ad for a Wikipedia campaign In 2009 the National Institutes of Health attempted a pilot project for integrating health information into Wikipedia 76 In 2011 it was reported that Cancer Research UK had started a program whereby some of its staff would edit Wikipedia s cancer related articles 77 The International League Against Epilepsy has an ongoing project called Wikipedia Epilepsy project to enhance the quality and knowledge about epilepsy 78 Health organisations like NIOSH 79 NIHR 80 and Cochrane 81 also started employing wikimedians in residence to coordinate their contributions to Wikipedia The University of California San Francisco has a program for encouraging students to contribute health content to Wikipedia 82 See also Edit Education portal Medicine portalHealth information on the Internet List of medical wikis Reliability of Wikipedia Science information on Wikipedia Academic studies of health information on Wikipedia a list maintained within Wikipedia of all academic publications on Wikipedia s health contentReferences Edit Laurent M R Vickers T J 2009 Seeking Health Information Online Does Wikipedia Matter Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 16 4 471 479 doi 10 1197 jamia M3059 PMC 2705249 PMID 19390105 Hellman James M Kemmann Eckhardt Bonert Michael Chatterjee Anwesh Ragar Brent Beards Graham M et al 31 January 2011 Wikipedia A Key Tool for Global Public Health Promotion Journal of Medical Internet Research 13 1 e14 doi 10 2196 jmir 1589 PMC 3221335 PMID 21282098 a b c Faric Nusa 5 December 2014 Around half of Wikipedia s medical editors are experts Wikimedia Blog a b c d e Heilman James M West Andrew G 2015 Wikipedia and Medicine Quantifying Readership Editors and the Significance of Natural Language Journal of Medical Internet Research 17 3 e62 doi 10 2196 jmir 4069 ISSN 1438 8871 PMC 4376174 PMID 25739399 Shafee Thomas Masukume Gwinyai Kipersztok Lisa Das Diptanshu Haggstrom Mikael Heilman James November 2017 Evolution of Wikipedia s medical content past present and future Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 71 11 1122 1129 doi 10 1136 jech 2016 208601 PMC 5847101 PMID 28847845 Ledger Thomas Stephen September 2017 Introduction to anatomy on Wikipedia Journal of Anatomy 231 3 430 432 doi 10 1111 joa 12640 PMC 5554820 PMID 28703298 a b Devgan Lara Powe Neil Blakey Brittony Makary Martin September 2007 Wiki Surgery Internal validity of Wikipedia as a medical and surgical reference Journal of the American College of Surgeons 205 3 S76 S77 doi 10 1016 j jamcollsurg 2007 06 190 Clauson K A Polen H H Boulos M N K Dzenowagis J H 18 November 2008 Scope Completeness and Accuracy of Drug Information in Wikipedia Annals of Pharmacotherapy 42 12 1814 1821 doi 10 1345 aph 1L474 PMID 19017825 S2CID 2072846 Leithner A Maurer Ertl W Glehr M Friesenbichler J Leithner K Windhager R July August 2010 Wikipedia and osteosarcoma a trustworthy patients information Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 17 4 373 374 doi 10 1136 jamia 2010 004507 PMC 2995655 PMID 20595302 Haigh CA February 2011 Wikipedia as an evidence source for nursing and healthcare students Nurse Education Today 31 2 135 9 doi 10 1016 j nedt 2010 05 004 PMID 20646799 Kupferberg N Protus BM October 2011 Accuracy and completeness of drug information in Wikipedia an assessment Journal of the Medical Library Association 99 4 310 3 doi 10 3163 1536 5050 99 4 010 PMC 3193353 PMID 22022226 Lavsa Stacey M Corman Shelby L Culley Colleen M Pummer Tara L April 2011 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 Phillips Jennifer Lam Connie Palmisano Lisa 2014 Analysis of the accuracy and readability of herbal supplement information on Wikipedia Journal of the American Pharmacists Association 54 4 406 14 doi 10 1331 JAPhA 2014 13181 ISSN 1544 3191 PMID 25063262 Archambault Patrick M Belt Tom H van de III Francisco J Grajales Faber Marjan J Kuziemsky Craig E Gagnon Susie Bilodeau Andrea Rioux Simon Nelen Willianne LDM 8 October 2013 Wikis and Collaborative Writing Applications in Health Care A Scoping Review Journal of Medical Internet Research 15 10 e210 doi 10 2196 jmir 2787 PMC 3929050 PMID 24103318 Koo Malcolm 2014 Complementary and Alternative Medicine on Wikipedia Opportunities for Improvement Evidence Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine 2014 105186 doi 10 1155 2014 105186 PMC 4016830 PMID 24864148 Hasty Robert Garvalosa Ryan Barbato Vincenzo Valdes Pedro Powers David Hernandez Emmanuel et al 2014 Wikipedia vs Peer Reviewed Medical Literature for Information About the 10 Most Costly Medical Conditions The Journal of the American Osteopathic Association 114 5 368 373 doi 10 7556 jaoa 2014 035 ISSN 0098 6151 PMID 24778001 Hasty Robert 8 May 2014 Dr Robert Hasty Wikipedia vs Peer Reviewed Medical Articles youtube com Retrieved 4 June 2014 Stephens Pippa 28 May 2014 Trust your doctor not Wikipedia say scientists bbc com Retrieved 4 June 2014 Kedmey Dan 27 May 2014 Don t Trust Wikipedia When It Comes to Your Health Study Says time com Retrieved 4 June 2014 Gagnon Tiffany 28 May 2014 Are Wikipedia Health Tips Making You Sick Men s Fitness Retrieved 4 June 2014 Dillner Luisa 1 June 2014 Is Wikipedia a reliable source for medical advice theguardian com Retrieved 4 June 2014 Chatterjee Anwesh Cooke Robin M T Furst Ian Heilman James 23 June 2014 Is Wikipedia s medical content really 90 wrong cochrane org Archived from the original on 2 July 2014 Retrieved 23 June 2014 a href Template Cite web html title Template Cite web cite web a CS1 maint bot original URL status unknown link Pippa Stephens Health reporter BBC News 28 May 2014 Trust your doctor not Wikipedia say scientists Accessed on 14 March 2017 a b Hwang Thomas J Bourgeois Florence T Seeger John D 2014 Drug Safety in the Digital Age New England Journal of Medicine 370 26 2460 2462 doi 10 1056 NEJMp1401767 ISSN 0028 4793 PMID 24963564 Kraenbring Jona Monzon Penza Tika Gutmann Joanna Muehlich Susanne Zolk Oliver Wojnowski Leszek Maas Renke Engelhardt Stefan Sarikas Antonio 24 September 2014 Accuracy and Completeness of Drug Information in Wikipedia A Comparison with Standard Textbooks of Pharmacology PLOS ONE 9 9 e106930 Bibcode 2014PLoSO 9j6930K doi 10 1371 journal pone 0106930 PMC 4174509 PMID 25250889 Venkatraman Anand Garg Neetika 2015 Greater freedom of speech on Web 2 0 correlates with dominance of views linking vaccines to autism Vaccines 17 33 1422 1425 doi 10 1016 j vaccine 2015 01 078 PMID 25665960 Reilly Timothy Jackson William Berger Victoria Candelario Danielle November 2016 Accuracy and completeness of drug information in Wikipedia medication monographs Journal of the American Pharmacists Association 57 2 193 196 e1 doi 10 1016 j japh 2016 10 007 PMID 27866956 Candelario Danielle M Vazquez Victoria Jackson William Reilly Timothy Completeness accuracy and readability of Wikipedia as a reference for patient medication information Journal of the American Pharmacists Association 57 2 197 200 e1 doi 10 1016 j japh 2016 12 063 PMID 28139458 Reavley N J Mackinnon A J Morgan A J Alvarez Jimenez M Hetrick S E Killackey E Nelson B Purcell R Yap M B H 2012 Quality of information sources about mental disorders a comparison of Wikipedia with centrally controlled web and printed sources Psychological Medicine 42 8 1753 1762 doi 10 1017 S003329171100287X hdl 11343 59260 ISSN 0033 2917 PMID 22166182 S2CID 13329595 Thomas G R Eng L De Wolff J F Grover S C 2013 An Evaluation of Wikipedia as a Resource for Patient Education in Nephrology Seminars in Dialysis 26 2 159 63 doi 10 1111 sdi 12059 PMID 23432369 S2CID 23361618 Brigo F Erro R 18 January 2015 The readability of the English Wikipedia article on Parkinson s disease Neurological Sciences 36 6 1045 6 doi 10 1007 s10072 015 2077 5 PMID 25596713 S2CID 23254630 Brigo F Otte WM Igwe SC Tezzon F Nardone R 16 January 2015 Clearly written easily comprehended The readability of websites providing information on epilepsy Epilepsy amp Behavior 44C 35 39 doi 10 1016 j yebeh 2014 12 029 PMID 25601720 S2CID 24972881 Punia Vineet Dagar Anjali Agarwal Nitin He Wenzhuan Hillen Machteld December 2014 Comparison of neurological healthcare oriented educational resources for patients on the internet Journal of Clinical Neuroscience 21 12 2179 2183 doi 10 1016 j jocn 2014 05 043 PMID 25194822 S2CID 45947522 Azer Samy A 2015 Is Wikipedia a reliable learning resource for medical students Evaluating respiratory topics Advances in Physiology Education 39 1 5 14 doi 10 1152 advan 00110 2014 ISSN 1043 4046 PMID 25727464 Azer SA AlSwaidan NM Alshwairikh LA AlShammari JM 6 October 2015 Accuracy and readability of cardiovascular entries on Wikipedia are they reliable learning resources for medical students BMJ Open 5 10 e008187 doi 10 1136 bmjopen 2015 008187 PMC 4606442 PMID 26443650 Hutchinson N Baird GL Garg M 29 January 2016 Examining the reading level of Internet medical information for common Internal Medicine diagnoses The American Journal of Medicine 129 6 637 9 doi 10 1016 j amjmed 2016 01 008 PMID 26829438 Saparova D Nolan NS January 2016 Evaluating the appropriateness of electronic information resources for learning Journal of the Medical Library Association 104 1 24 32 doi 10 3163 1536 5050 104 1 004 PMC 4722638 PMID 26807049 Watad Abdulla Bragazzi Nicola Luigi Brigo Francesco Sharif Kassem Amital Howard McGonagle Dennis Shoenfeld Yehuda Adawi Mohammad 2017 Readability of Wikipedia Pages on Autoimmune Disorders Systematic Quantitative Assessment Journal of Medical Internet Research 19 7 e260 doi 10 2196 jmir 8225 PMC 5539385 PMID 28720555 Modiria Omen Guhab Daipayan Alotaibib Naif M Ibrahim George M Lipsmanb Nor Fallahc Aria 2018 Readability and quality of wikipedia pages on neurosurgical topics Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery 166 66 70 doi 10 1016 j clineuro 2018 01 021 PMID 29408776 S2CID 3544057 a b Williams Grut Oscar 3 October 2014 Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales Free Wiki could save thousands of lives The Independent London INM ISSN 0951 9467 OCLC 185201487 Archived from the original on 9 May 2022 Retrieved 7 October 2014 a b Cohen Noam 26 October 2014 Wikipedia Emerges as Trusted Internet Source for Ebola Information The New York Times ISSN 0362 4331 Retrieved 27 October 2014 a b Sifferlin Alexandra 25 March 2014 Wikipedia Founder Sticks It To Lunatic Holistic Healers Time Retrieved 26 March 2014 Hay Newman Lily 27 March 2014 Jimmy Wales Gets Real and Sassy About Wikipedia s Holistic Healing Coverage Slate magazine Retrieved 23 November 2014 ACEP s Position Statement on Wikipedia energypsych org Retrieved 23 November 2014 Ullman Dana 10 October 2014 Dysfunction at Wikipedia on Homeopathic Medicine The Huffington Post Retrieved 23 November 2014 Fox S Jones S 11 June 2009 The social life of health information Washington DC Pew Internet and American Life Project cited 6 October 2010 Archived from the original on 12 January 2014 Retrieved 12 October 2015 a href Template Cite web html title Template Cite web cite web a CS1 maint location link Health Fact Sheet Pew Research Center Internet Research 2013 Makovsky Health 9 September 2013 Online Health Research Eclipsing Patient Doctor Conversations Makovsky makovsky com Archived from the original on 13 October 2012 Retrieved 2 October 2013 Note sketchy link requires registration IMS Health 2014 The use of Wikipedia in Health Care Engaging patients through social media Is healthcare ready for empowered and digitally demanding patients IMS Health pp 16 26 Retrieved 22 January 2014 Further cited in NPR staff 8 February 2014 Dr Wikipedia The Double Edged Sword Of Crowd Sourced Medicine npr org NPR Retrieved 10 February 2014 Feltman Rachel 28 January 2014 America s future doctors are starting their careers by saving Wikipedia qz com Retrieved 5 February 2014 Tucker Miriam E 5 February 2014 Doctors Not Just Patients Use Wikipedia Too IMS Report Medscape Retrieved 7 February 2014 Beck Julie 5 March 2014 Doctors 1 Source for Healthcare Information Wikipedia theatlantic com Retrieved 5 March 2014 Laurent M R Vickers T J 1 July 2009 Seeking Health Information Online Does Wikipedia Matter Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 16 4 471 479 doi 10 1197 jamia M3059 PMC 2705249 PMID 19390105 Godlee F 27 March 2014 Unethical a guilty secret and still crazy after all these years BMJ 348 mar27 1 g2396 doi 10 1136 bmj g2396 Brigo Francesco Igwe Stanley C Nardone Raffaele Lochner Piergiorgio Tezzon Frediano Otte Willem M July 2015 Wikipedia and neurological disorders Journal of Clinical Neuroscience 22 7 1170 1172 doi 10 1016 j jocn 2015 02 006 PMID 25890773 S2CID 25821260 Morris Nathaniel P 18 November 2013 Wikipedia s role in medical education brings awesome promise and a few risks bostonglobe com Retrieved 21 November 2013 Teunis Teun March 2013 The Wikipedia Guide to Medicine Could the Online Encyclopaedia Provide the Basis for a New Medical School Curriculum Student BMJ 21 16 17 doi 10 1136 sbmj f1091 S2CID 164238600 Allahwala Usaid K Nadkarni Aniket Sebaratnam Deshan F 2013 Wikipedia use amongst medical students New insights into the digital revolution Medical Teacher 35 4 337 doi 10 3109 0142159X 2012 737064 ISSN 0142 159X PMID 23137251 S2CID 39910202 Azzam A Bresler D Leon A Maggio L Whitaker E Heilman J Orlowitz J Swisher V Rasberry L Otoide K Trotter F Ross W McCue JD February 2017 Why Medical Schools Should Embrace Wikipedia Final Year Medical Student Contributions to Wikipedia Articles for Academic Credit at One School Academic Medicine 92 2 194 200 doi 10 1097 ACM 0000000000001381 PMC 5265689 PMID 27627633 Kolski D Arlt S Birk S Heuwieser W 2013 Use and acceptance of Wiki systems for students of veterinary medicine GMS Zeitschrift fur Medizinische Ausbildung 30 1 Doc10 doi 10 3205 zma000853 PMC 3589678 PMID 23467415 Herbert Verena G Frings Andreas Rehatschek Herwig Richard Gilbert Leithner Andreas 2015 Wikipedia challenges and new horizons in enhancing medical education BMC Medical Education 15 32 32 doi 10 1186 s12909 015 0309 2 PMC 4384304 PMID 25879421 O Carroll AE West EP Dooley D Gordon KE June 2015 Information Seeking Behaviors of Medical Students A Cross Sectional Web Based Survey JMIR Medical Education 1 1 E4 doi 10 2196 mededu 4267 PMC 5041342 PMID 27731842 Judd Terry Elliott Kristine 2017 Selection and Use of Online Learning Resources by First Year Medical Students Cross Sectional Study JMIR Medical Education 3 2 e17 doi 10 2196 mededu 7382 PMC 5643842 PMID 28970187 Taylor Janice A Shaw Christiana M Tan Sanda A Falcone John L 2017 Are the kids alright Review books and the internet as the most common study resources for the general surgery clerkship The American Journal of Surgery 215 1 191 195 doi 10 1016 j amjsurg 2017 01 036 PMID 28237045 Hughes Benjamin Joshi Indra Lemonde Hugh Wareham Jonathan October 2009 Junior physician s use of Web 2 0 for information seeking and medical education A qualitative study International Journal of Medical Informatics 78 10 645 655 doi 10 1016 j ijmedinf 2009 04 008 PMID 19501017 Torous John Franzen Jamie O Connor Ryan Mathew Ian Keshavan Matcher Kitts Robert Boland Robert 2015 Psychiatry Residents Use of Educational Websites A Pilot Survey Study Academic Psychiatry 39 6 630 633 doi 10 1007 s40596 015 0335 8 PMID 26077007 S2CID 207500506 Fritz M Gschwandtner M Stefanov V Hanbury A Samwald M June 2013 Utilization and Perceived Problems of Online Medical Resources and Search Tools Among Different Groups of European Physicians Journal of Medical Internet Research 15 6 e122 doi 10 2196 jmir 2436 PMC 3713956 PMID 23803299 Santillan Azucena Manez Miguel Angel Meijome Xose Manuel 2014 Uso de Wikipedia por los profesionales de la salud Use of Wikipedia by health professionals Gaceta Sanitaria in Spanish 28 6 522 doi 10 1016 j gaceta 2014 04 014 PMID 25087118 a b c Waagmeester Andra Stupp Gregory Burgstaller Muehlbacher Sebastian Good Benjamin M Griffith Malachi Griffith Obi L Hanspers Kristina Hermjakob Henning Hudson Toby S Hybiske Kevin Keating Sarah M Manske Magnus Mayers Michael Mietchen Daniel Mitraka Elvira Pico Alexander R Putman Timothy Riutta Anders Queralt Rosinach Nuria Schriml Lynn M Shafee Thomas Slenter Denise Stephan Ralf Thornton Katherine Tsueng Ginger Tu Roger Ul Hasan Sabah Willighagen Egon Wu Chunlei Su Andrew I 17 March 2020 Wikidata as a knowledge graph for the life sciences eLife 9 e52614 doi 10 7554 eLife 52614 Bould M D Hladkowicz E S Pigford A A E Ufholz L A Postonogova T Shin E Boet S 6 March 2014 References that anyone can edit review of Wikipedia citations in peer reviewed health science literature BMJ 348 mar05 4 g1585 doi 10 1136 bmj g1585 PMC 3944683 PMID 24603564 Blackwell Tom 12 March 2014 It s against all principles of scientific reporting Thousands of medical papers cite Wikipedia study says National Post Archived from the original on 13 March 2014 Retrieved 13 March 2014 a b Cohen Noam 28 July 2009 Has Wikipedia Created a Rorschach Cheat Sheet Analyze That The New York Times ISSN 0362 4331 Retrieved 2 October 2013 Lilienfeld Scott 3 August 2009 The Rorschach Wikipedia Kerfuffle Continues Psychology Today Retrieved 2 October 2013 White Patrick 29 July 2009 Rorschach and Wikipedia The battle of the inkblots The Globe and Mail Retrieved 2 October 2013 Schultz D S Brabender V M 2013 More Challenges Since Wikipedia The Effects of Exposure to Internet Information About the Rorschach on Selected Comprehensive System Variables Journal of Personality Assessment 95 2 149 158 doi 10 1080 00223891 2012 725438 PMID 23030722 S2CID 21422063 a b Faric Nusa Potts Henry WW 2014 Motivations for Contributing to Health Related Articles on Wikipedia An Interview Study Journal of Medical Internet Research 16 12 e260 doi 10 2196 jmir 3569 ISSN 1438 8871 PMC 4275502 PMID 25498308 Dijkstra Louis J Krieg Lisa J 2016 From MDMA to Lady Gaga Expertise and contribution behavior of editing communities on Wikipedia Procedia Computer Science 1 96 106 arXiv 1005 5384 doi 10 1016 j procs 2016 11 013 McIver David J Brownstein John S Salathe Marcel 17 April 2014 Wikipedia Usage Estimates Prevalence of Influenza Like Illness in the United States in Near Real Time PLOS Computational Biology 10 4 e1003581 Bibcode 2014PLSCB 10E3581M doi 10 1371 journal pcbi 1003581 PMC 3990502 PMID 24743682 How Wikipedia Data Is Revolutionizing Flu Forecasting MIT Technology Review 3 November 2014 Retrieved 4 November 2014 Generous Nicholas Fairchild Geoffrey Deshpande Alina Del Valle Sara Y Priedhorsky Reid Salathe Marcel 13 November 2014 Global Disease Monitoring and Forecasting with Wikipedia PLOS Computational Biology 10 11 e1003892 arXiv 1405 3612 Bibcode 2014PLSCB 10E3892G doi 10 1371 journal pcbi 1003892 PMC 4231164 PMID 25392913 Wikipedia foresees virus outbreaks BBC News 13 November 2014 Retrieved 14 November 2014 Madrigal Alexis 21 July 2009 Wikipedia Teaches NIH Scientists Wiki Culture Wired Science Wired Retrieved 2 October 2013 Garnett Carla 4 September 2009 NIH Wikipedia Join Forces to Improve Online Health Info NIH Record Archived from the original on 1 April 2012 Retrieved 4 June 2012 Cancer charity tidies Wikipedia BBC News 4 April 2011 Retrieved 6 November 2014 The ILAE Wikipedia Epilepsy Project www ILAE ORG a href Template Cite web html title Template Cite web cite web a CS1 maint url status link Collaboration with Wikipedia Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Retrieved 14 January 2022 a href Template Cite web html title Template Cite web cite web a CS1 maint url status link National Institute for Health Research launches Wikimedian in Residence in collaboration with Wikimedia UK WMUK 10 December 2021 Retrieved 14 January 2022 Improving Health Related Content on Wikipedia community cochrane org Retrieved 14 January 2022 Cohen Noam 29 September 2013 Editing Wikipedia Pages for Med School Credit The New York Times ISSN 0362 4331 Retrieved 1 October 2013 Bunim Juliana 26 September 2013 UCSF First U S Medical School to Offer Credit For Wikipedia Articles ucsf edu Retrieved 1 October 2013 Beck Julie 1 October 2013 Should I Be Getting Health Information From Wikipedia The Atlantic Retrieved 2 October 2013 Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Health information on Wikipedia amp oldid 1126999695, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,

article

, read, download, free, free download, mp3, video, mp4, 3gp, jpg, jpeg, gif, png, picture, music, song, movie, book, game, games.