Wikipedia and osteosarcoma: a trustworthy patients' information?

From WikiLit
Jump to: navigation, search
Publication (help)
Wikipedia and osteosarcoma: a trustworthy patients' information?
Authors: Andreas Leithner, Werner Maurer-Ertl, Mathias Glehr, Joerg Friesenbichler, Katharina Leithner, Reinhard Windhager [edit item]
Citation: Journal of American Medical Informatics Association 35 (2): 81-85. 2010 May.
Publication type: Journal article
Peer-reviewed: Yes
Database(s):
DOI: 10.1136/jamia.2010.004507.
Google Scholar cites: Citations
Link(s): Paper link
Added by Wikilit team: Added on initial load
Search
Article: Google Scholar BASE PubMed
Other scholarly wikis: AcaWiki Brede Wiki WikiPapers
Web search: Bing Google Yahoo!Google PDF
Other:
Services
Format: BibTeX
Wikipedia and osteosarcoma: a trustworthy patients' information? is a publication by Andreas Leithner, Werner Maurer-Ertl, Mathias Glehr, Joerg Friesenbichler, Katharina Leithner, Reinhard Windhager.


[edit] Abstract

The English version of the online encyclopedia, Wikipedia, has been recently reported to be the prominent source of online health information. However, there is little information concerning the quality of information found in Wikipedia. Therefore, we created a questionnaire asking for scope, completeness, and accuracy of information found on osteosarcoma. Three independent observers tested the English version of Wikipedia, as well as the patient version and the health professional version of the {US} National Cancer Institute {(NCI)} website. Answers were verified with authoritative resources and international guidelines. The results of our study demonstrate that the quality of osteosarcoma-related information found in the English Wikipedia is good but inferior to the patient information provided by the {NCI.} Therefore, non-peer-reviewed commonly used websites offering health information, such as Wikipedia, should include links to more definitive sources, such as those maintained by the {NCI} and professional international organizations on healthcare treatments. Furthermore, frequent checks should make sure such external links are to the highest quality and to the best-maintained aggregate sites on a given healthcare topic.

[edit] Research questions

"there is little information concerning the quality of information found in Wikipedia. Therefore, we created a questionnaire asking for scope, completeness, and accuracy of information found on osteosarcoma."

Research details

Topics: Comprehensiveness, Reliability [edit item]
Domains: Health [edit item]
Theory type: Analysis [edit item]
Wikipedia coverage: Main topic [edit item]
Theories: "Undetermined" [edit item]
Research design: Content analysis [edit item]
Data source: Wikipedia pages [edit item]
Collected data time dimension: Cross-sectional [edit item]
Unit of analysis: Website [edit item]
Wikipedia data extraction: Live Wikipedia [edit item]
Wikipedia page type: Article, Information categorization and navigation [edit item]
Wikipedia language: English [edit item]

[edit] Conclusion

"The results of our study demonstrate that the quality of osteosarcomarelated information found in the English Wikipedia is good but inferior to the patient information provided by the NCI. Therefore, non-peer-reviewed commonly used websites offering health information, such as Wikipedia, should include links to more definitive sources, such as those maintained by the NCI and professional international organizations on healthcare treatments. Furthermore, frequent checks should make sure such external links are to the highest quality and to the bestmaintained aggregate sites on a given healthcare topic."

[edit] Comments

""The quality of osteosarcomarelated information found in the English Wikipedia is good but inferior to the patient information provided by the NCI." p. 373"


Further notes[edit]

Facts about "Wikipedia and osteosarcoma: a trustworthy patients' information?"RDF feed
AbstractThe English version of the online encyclopThe English version of the online encyclopedia, Wikipedia, has been recently reported to be the prominent source of online health information. However, there is little information concerning the quality of information found in Wikipedia. Therefore, we created a questionnaire asking for scope, completeness, and accuracy of information found on osteosarcoma. Three independent observers tested the English version of Wikipedia, as well as the patient version and the health professional version of the {US} National Cancer Institute {(NCI)} website. Answers were verified with authoritative resources and international guidelines. The results of our study demonstrate that the quality of osteosarcoma-related information found in the English Wikipedia is good but inferior to the patient information provided by the {NCI.} Therefore, non-peer-reviewed commonly used websites offering health information, such as Wikipedia, should include links to more definitive sources, such as those maintained by the {NCI} and professional international organizations on healthcare treatments. Furthermore, frequent checks should make sure such external links are to the highest quality and to the best-maintained aggregate sites on a given healthcare topic.gregate sites on a given healthcare topic.
Added by wikilit teamAdded on initial load +
Collected data time dimensionCross-sectional +
Comments"The quality of osteosarcomarelated information found in the English Wikipedia is good but inferior to the patient information provided by the NCI." p. 373
ConclusionThe results of our

study demonstrate that The results of our study demonstrate that the quality of osteosarcomarelated information found in the English Wikipedia is good but inferior to the patient information provided by the NCI. Therefore, non-peer-reviewed commonly used websites offering health information, such as Wikipedia, should include links to more definitive sources, such as those maintained by the NCI and professional international organizations on healthcare treatments. Furthermore, frequent checks should make sure such external links are to the highest quality and to the bestmaintained

aggregate sites on a given healthcare topic.gregate sites on a given healthcare topic.
Data sourceWikipedia pages +
Doi10.1136/jamia.2010.004507 +
Google scholar urlhttp://scholar.google.com/scholar?ie=UTF-8&q=%22Wikipedia%2Band%2Bosteosarcoma%3A%2Ba%2Btrustworthy%2Bpatients%27%2Binformation%3F%22 +
Has authorAndreas Leithner +, Werner Maurer-Ertl +, Mathias Glehr +, Joerg Friesenbichler +, Katharina Leithner + and Reinhard Windhager +
Has domainHealth +
Has topicComprehensiveness + and Reliability +
Issue2 +
MonthMay +
Pages81-85 +
Peer reviewedYes +
Publication typeJournal article +
Published inJournal of American Medical Informatics Association +
Research designContent analysis +
Research questionsthere is little information concerning the quality of information found in Wikipedia. Therefore, we created a questionnaire asking for scope, completeness, and accuracy of information found on osteosarcoma.
Revid11,085 +
TheoriesUndetermined
Theory typeAnalysis +
TitleWikipedia and osteosarcoma: a trustworthy patients' information?
Unit of analysisWebsite +
Urlhttp://jamia.bmj.com/content/17/4/373.short +
Volume35 +
Wikipedia coverageMain topic +
Wikipedia data extractionLive Wikipedia +
Wikipedia languageEnglish +
Wikipedia page typeArticle + and Information categorization and navigation +
Year2010 +