Modern medicine comes online: How putting Wikipedia articles through a medical journal's traditional process can put free, reliable information into as many hands as possible.

Abstract

Despite its popularity in medical circles, Wikipedia endures skepticism. Often used to gather information, it is rarely considered accurate or complete enough to guide treatment decisions In the face of this, clinicians and trainees turn to resources like UpToDate with greater frequency and confidence because in clinical medicine, a small error can make a big difference. In this issue of Open Medicine, we've published the first ever formally peer-reviewed, and edited, Wikipedia article. The clinical topic is Dengue Fever. Though there may be a need for shorter, more focused clinical articles published elsewhere as this one expands, it is anticipated that the Wikipedia page on Dengue will be a reference against which all others can be compared. Though it might be decades before we see an end to Dengue, perhaps the end to exhaustive or expensive searches about what yet needs to be done, can bring it sooner.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 10 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.