The online encyclopedia Wikipedia 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 are Wikipedia are popularly accessed as results from search engines , qui frequently deliver links to Wikipedia items. [1] Independent assessments-have-been made of the number and demographics of people Who seek health information is Wikipedia , the scope of health information is Wikipedia, and the quality of the information is Wikipedia. [2]

The English-language Wikipedia was estimated in 2014 to hold around 25,000 articles on health-related topics. [3] Across Wikipedia encyclopedias in all languages There Were 155,000 950,000 health products using quotes to sources and qui Collectively received 4.8 trillion pageviews in 2013. [4] This amount of traffic one of Wikipedia Makes The Most Consulted health resources in the world, gold Perhaps the most consulted resource. [4]

Accuracy and usefulness of content

Academic studies

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. [5] However, the authors of this article have not yet reviewed the results of this study. [5]

A 2008 study Reported That drug information is Wikipedia “has a more narrow scope, is less full, and HAS more errors of omission” than DID Such information on the traditionally edited online database Medscape Drug Reference . [6]

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. [7]

A 2011 study examined Wikipedia about about five statins , and that these pages did not contain incorrect or misleading information, but that they were often missing information about drug interactions and contraindications to use. [8]

Another 2011 study examining Wikipedia articles on the 20th most widely prescribed drugs that have these references, and concluded that “Wikipedia does not provide consistently accurate, complete, and referenced medication information.” [9]

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.” [10]

A 2013 review of nephrology happy Wikipedia we found it to be “a fairly comprehensive and reliable medical resource for nephrology patients That Is written at a college reading level”. [11]

Journal of Medical Internet Research in the Journal of Medical Internet Research, Vol. Necessary to begin drawing conclusions. [12]

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 [13]

In May 2014, the American 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.” [14] [15] Following this paper, many other media sources read Wikipedia for medical information. [16] [17] [18] [19] Wikipedia’s contributors to its health content defended Wikipedia and criticized this study, [20] as the research is considered severely flawed including basic methodological flaws. [21]

A 2014 study found that when the FDA issues new safety warnings about drugs, in 41% of the cases reviewed Wikipedia articles about which drugs were given to give the new safety information within two weeks. [22]Another 23% of Wikipedia articles were updated to give this information within an average of about 40 days, purpose 36% of articles are not updated with this information within a year. [22]

A 2014 comparison between selected drug information from pharmacology textbooks and comparable information on the English-language and German-language Wikipedia [23]

The readability of Wikipedia’s articles for epilepsy and Parkinson’s disease was criticized and found to be difficult to read. [24] [25] Another study found that Wikipedia ‘s information about neurological diseases was found in the American Academy of Neurology ‘ s patient information brochures, the Mayo Clinic ‘s website, or MedlinePlus . [26] Another 2015 study, this one authored by Samy Azer , reported that Wikipedia should not be used to learn about concepts related to pulmonology students. [27] Another 2015 study by Azer found that Wikipedia entries about cardiovascular diseases were “not aimed at a medical hearing” and were mainly inaccurate due to errors of omission. [28]

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”). [29] In contrast, Reviews another study published le même That year found medical students reading about three diseases are unstudied AccessMedicine and Wikipedia Experienced mental effort less than DID readers of the Sami are diseases UpToDate . [30]

A 2016 study found that drug information on Wikipedia was the micromedex . [31]

A 2017 study compares 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 the corresponding medication guides. [32]

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. [33] Wales presented the Wikipedia Zero project as a channel for delivering health information in places where people have difficulty accessing online information. [33]

As a result of public interest in the 2014 Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa , Wikipedia became a popular source of information on Ebola . [34] Doctors who were Wikipedia contributors said that Wikipedia’s quality made it useful. [34]

Alternative medicine

People Who Promote alternative medicine -have complained Wikipedia That Negatively portrays holistic health treatments Including energy medicine , Emotional Freedom Techniques , Thought Field Therapy and Tapas Acupressure Technique . [35] 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.” [35] [36] [37] Similar issues regarding homeopathy . [38]

Wikipedia policy for items That “could reasonably be Perceived as Relating to human health” comes under the policy for medicine-related articles qui est science -based.

Extent of use

The majority of people in the United States use the Internet as a source of health information. [39] One 2013 study suggested that 22% of healthcare searches online direct users to Wikipedia. [40]

Wikipedia was described in 2014 as “the leading single source of healthcare information for patients and healthcare professionals”. [41] A study of a group of veterinary students found that the majority of these students have medical information on Wikipedia. [42] Some doctors have described their use of Wikipedia as a “guilty secret”. [43]

Wikipedia has an article on: Medical Transcription. [44] Various commentators in health education have said that Wikipedia is popular among medical students. [45] [46]

Academic citations

Wikipedia has an authoritative source in many health journals. [47] [48]

Impact on psychological tests

In 2009 a doctor and Wikipedia editor, James Heilman , incorporated public domain images of the Rorschach test into Wikipedia. [49] Psychologists complained that the public exposure to these tests devalued their clinical utility, and that public health was harmed as a result. [49]

Nature of contributors

A 2014 interview with a health care worker in the mid-1960s. [3] An author of this paper wrote that this provides “reassurance about the reliability of the website”. [3] The study also found that the “core editor community”, which actively monitors and edits most health-related articles on the English-language Wikipedia, numbered around 300 people. [50] The study found that people who made a contribution to the health of the population, [50]

Usage of traffic statistics in health monitoring

Just as Google Flu Trends Was ble to correlate searches for flu to local outbreaks of flu , page views of Wikipedia Articles are flu-related topics-have-been found pour augmenter in populations experiencing the spread of flu, [51] [52] and of other Diseases such as dengue fever and tuberculosis . [53] [54]

Projects to improve health information on Wikipedia

In 2009 the National Institutes of Health attempted a pilot project for integrating health information into Wikipedia. [55] 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. [56]

The University of California, San Francisco has a program for encouraging students to contribute health content to Wikipedia. [57]

In response to studies showing que la majorité of patients and providers use the Internet to find health information, [58] [59] the Maternal and Child Health (MCH) Library Developed a New Media Primer pour augmenter the skills of health care providers in using Social media to share information on public health. [60] A 2012 article from Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario describes the development of a disease-specific primer for providers and patients. [61]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *