Wiki-Surgery? Internal validity of Wikipedia as a medical and surgical reference

Devgan, Lara; Powe, Neil R.; Blakey, Brittony; Makary, Martin A.

doi:10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2007.06.190

Cited by 40 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We found 4 experimental studies, 5 quasi-experimental, 5 observational analytic, 52 case studies, 22 describing the quality of wikis, and 23 surveys on wiki use (Multimedia Appendix 1; [27,29-32,38,42,53,54,58,61,63,72,74,76,95-262]). Wikis (n=106) and Google Docs (n=6) are the main types of CWAs used in health care.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We found 25 papers reporting on the quality of information in CWAs (Multimedia Appendix 3; [54,58,61,63,96,99,104,121,122,124,131-137,182,183,190,195-199]). With the exception of one paper evaluating the quality of information in 52 medical wikis other than Wikipedia [99], all studies focused on evaluating the quality of medical information in Wikipedia (n=24).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Another study concluded that Wikipedia was adequate for clinician and student education [104] while the third study concluded that further improvement of orthognatic surgery information was needed in Wikipedia before referring consumers to the site to support decision making [133]. A recurrent finding about Wikipedia was that its content is accurate, but that it often omits important medical facts and information [58,61]. …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Wikis and Collaborative Writing Applications in Health Care: A Scoping Review

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundCollaborative writing applications (eg, wikis and Google Documents) hold the potential to improve the use of evidence in both public health and health care. The rapid rise in their use has created the need for a systematic synthesis of the evidence of their impact as knowledge translation (KT) tools in the health care sector and for an inventory of the factors that affect their use.ObjectiveThrough the Levac six-stage methodology, a scoping review was undertaken to explore the depth and breadth of evidence about the effective, safe, and ethical use of wikis and collaborative writing applications (CWAs) in health care.MethodsMultiple strategies were used to locate studies. Seven scientific databases and 6 grey literature sources were queried for articles on wikis and CWAs published between 2001 and September 16, 2011. In total, 4436 citations and 1921 grey literature items were screened. Two reviewers independently reviewed citations, selected eligible studies, and extracted data using a standardized form. We included any paper presenting qualitative or quantitative empirical evidence concerning health care and CWAs. We defined a CWA as any technology that enables the joint and simultaneous editing of a webpage or an online document by many end users. We performed qualitative content analysis to identify the factors that affect the use of CWAs using the Gagnon framework and their effects on health care using the Donabedian framework.ResultsOf the 111 studies included, 4 were experimental, 5 quasi-experimental, 5 observational, 52 case studies, 23 surveys about wiki use, and 22 descriptive studies about the quality of information in wikis. We classified them by theme: patterns of use of CWAs (n=26), quality of information in existing CWAs (n=25), and CWAs as KT tools (n=73). A high prevalence of CWA use (ie, more than 50%) is reported in 58% (7/12) of surveys conducted with health care professionals and students. However, we found only one longitudinal study showing that CWA use is increasing in health care. Moreover, contribution rates remain low and the quality of information contained in different CWAs needs improvement. We identified 48 barriers and 91 facilitators in 4 major themes (factors related to the CWA, users’ knowledge and attitude towards CWAs, human environment, and organizational environment). We also found 57 positive and 23 negative effects that we classified into processes and outcomes.ConclusionsAlthough we found some experimental and quasi-experimental studies of the effectiveness and safety of CWAs as educational and KT interventions, the vast majority of included studies were observational case studies about CWAs being used by health professionals and patients. More primary research is needed to find ways to address the different barriers to their use and to make these applications more useful for different stakeholders.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Wikis and Collaborative Writing Applications in Health Care: A Scoping Review

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Devgan et al (2007) surveyed medical doctors concerning 39 common surgical procedures. They could find 35 corresponding Wikipedia articles, with all of them judged to be without overt errors.…”

Section: Reliability Assessment Of Wikipediamentioning

confidence: 99%

The People’s Encyclopedia Under the Gaze of the Sages: A Systematic Review of Scholarly Research on Wikipedia

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Wikipedia has become one of the ten most visited sites on the Web, and the world's leading source of Web reference information. Its rapid success has inspired hundreds of scholars from various disciplines to study its content, communication and community dynamics from various perspectives. This article presents a systematic review of scholarly research on Wikipedia. We describe our detailed, rigorous methodology for identifying over 450 scholarly studies of Wikipedia. We present the WikiLit website (http://wikilit.referata.com), where most of the papers reviewed here are described in detail. In the major section of this article, we then categorize and summarize the studies. An appendix features an extensive list of resources useful for Wikipedia researchers.

show abstract

“…Wikipedia is, however, more prone to inconspicuous errors including omissions or misleading assertions. Empirical studies discussed in Fallis [20] recognize the overall reliability of Wikipedia, but identify as a major source of error the incompleteness of the entries rather than their inaccuracy [21,21].…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Personal name vocabularies as linked open data: A case study of jazz artist names

Pattuelli

2012

Journal of Information Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper describes the process of constructing a vocabulary of personal names of jazz artists in the form of Linked Open Data (LOD). Created as a name directory to support the development of the Linked Jazz project, 1 it provides a case study that demonstrates the value and the challenges of developing a domain-specific vocabulary tool that draws upon the semantics of DBpedia, a major LOD dataset. The paper also addresses possible strategies for enhancing the directory to make it a more robust personal name vocabulary.

show abstract

Wiki-Surgery? Internal validity of Wikipedia as a medical and surgical reference

Cited by 40 publications

References 0 publications

Wikis and Collaborative Writing Applications in Health Care: A Scoping Review

Wikis and Collaborative Writing Applications in Health Care: A Scoping Review

The People’s Encyclopedia Under the Gaze of the Sages: A Systematic Review of Scholarly Research on Wikipedia

Personal name vocabularies as linked open data: A case study of jazz artist names

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About