Patient-oriented cancer information on the internet: a comparison of wikipedia and a professionally maintained database.

Bruce and Ruth Rappaport Faculty of Medicine, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel.
Journal of Oncology Practice 09/2011; 7(5):319-23. DOI: 10.1200/JOP.2010.000209
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT A wiki is a collaborative Web site, such as Wikipedia, that can be freely edited. Because of a wiki's lack of formal editorial control, we hypothesized that the content would be less complete and accurate than that of a professional peer-reviewed Web site. In this study, the coverage, accuracy, and readability of cancer information on Wikipedia were compared with those of the patient-orientated National Cancer Institute's Physician Data Query (PDQ) comprehensive cancer database.
For each of 10 cancer types, medically trained personnel scored PDQ and Wikipedia articles for accuracy and presentation of controversies by using an appraisal form. Reliability was assessed by using interobserver variability and test-retest reproducibility. Readability was calculated from word and sentence length.
Evaluators were able to rapidly assess articles (18 minutes/article), with a test-retest reliability of 0.71 and interobserver variability of 0.53. For both Web sites, inaccuracies were rare, less than 2% of information examined. PDQ was significantly more readable than Wikipedia: Flesch-Kincaid grade level 9.6 versus 14.1. There was no difference in depth of coverage between PDQ and Wikipedia (29.9, 34.2, respectively; maximum possible score 72). Controversial aspects of cancer care were relatively poorly discussed in both resources (2.9 and 6.1 for PDQ and Wikipedia, respectively, NS; maximum possible score 18). A planned subanalysis comparing common and uncommon cancers demonstrated no difference.
Although the wiki resource had similar accuracy and depth as the professionally edited database, it was significantly less readable. Further research is required to assess how this influences patients' understanding and retention.


Available from: Yaacov Richard Lawrence, May 06, 2015
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objectives: To determine the presence and appropriateness of the terminology concerning Food/Nutrition Science in the Spanish and English editions of Wikipedia and to compare them with that of an encyclopaedia for general use (Mini Larousse). Méthods: The terms in the study were taken from the LID dictionary on metabolism and nutrition: The existence and appropriateness of the selected terms were checked through random sample estimate with no replacement (n=386), using the Spanish and English editions of Wikipedia. Results: The existence of 261 terms in the Spanish edition and 306 in the English edition was determined from the study sample (n=386). Several differences were found between the two editions (p<0,001). There were differences between the two editions in relation to the appropriateness of definitions, though these were not studied in any depth (p<0,001). During the study of the 261 terms in the Spanish version of Wikipedia,3 entries (1,15%, IC95%: 0,00-2.44) were found to be lacking in appropriate information; 2 of the 306 entries in the English edition failed to give appropriate information (0,52%, IC95%: 0,00-1,23). A comparison between the existing entries of the Mini Larousse Encyclopaedia and the Spanish edition of Wikipedia, showed Wikipedia (p<0,001) as having a larger number of entries. Conclusions: The terminology under study is present to a lesser extent in the Spanish edition of Wikipedia than in the English edition. The appropriateness of content was greater in the English edition. Both the Spanish and English editions have a greater number of entries and more exact ones than the Mini Larousse.
    Nutricion hospitalaria: organo oficial de la Sociedad Espanola de Nutricion Parenteral y Enteral 01/2015; 31(1):488-493. DOI:10.3305/nh.2015.31.1.8179 · 1.25 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Wikipedia may be the best-developed attempt thus far to gather all human knowledge in one place. Its accomplishments in this regard have made it a point of inquiry for researchers from different fields of knowledge. A decade of research has thrown light on many aspects of the Wikipedia community, its processes, and its content. However, due to the variety of fields inquiring about Wikipedia and the limited synthesis of the extensive research, there is little consensus on many aspects of Wikipedia's content as an encyclopedic collection of human knowledge. This study addresses the issue by systematically reviewing 110 peer-reviewed publications on Wikipedia content, summarizing the current findings, and highlighting the major research trends. Two major streams of research are identified: the quality of Wikipedia content (including comprehensiveness, currency, readability, and reliability) and the size of Wikipedia. Moreover, we present the key research trends in terms of the domains of inquiry, research design, data source, and data gathering methods. This review synthesizes scholarly understanding of Wikipedia content and paves the way for future studies. Open access version:
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 01/2015; DOI:10.1002/asi.23172 · 2.23 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The aim of the present study was to critically evaluate the accuracy and readability of English Wikipedia articles on the respiratory system and its disorders and whether they can be a suitable resource for medical students. On April 27, 2014, English Wikipedia was searched for articles on respiratory topics. Using a modified DISCERN instrument, articles were independently scored by three assessors. The scoring targeted content accuracy, frequency of updating, and quality of references. The readability of articles was measured using two other instruments. The mean DISCERN score for the 40 articles identified was 26.4 ± 6.3. Most articles covered causes, signs and symptoms, prevention, and treatment. However, several knowledge deficiencies in the pathogenesis of diseases, investigations needed, and treatment were observed. The total number of references for the 40 articles was 1,654, and the references varied from 0 to 168 references, but several problems were identified in the list of references and citations made. The readability of articles was in the range of 9.4 ± 1.8 to 22.6 ± 10.7 using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level instrument and 10.0 ± 2.6 to 19.6 ± 8.3 using the Readability Coleman-Liau index. A strong correlation was found between the two instruments (r(2) = 0.744, P < 0.001). The agreement between the assessors had mean κ scores in the range of 0.712-0.857. In conclusion, despite the effort placed in creating Wikipedia respiratory articles by anonymous volunteers (wikipedians), most articles had knowledge deficiencies, were not accurate, and were not suitable for medical students as learning resources. Copyright © 2015 The American Physiological Society.
    AJP Advances in Physiology Education 03/2015; 39(1):5-14. DOI:10.1152/advan.00110.2014 · 1.24 Impact Factor