Accuracy and readability of cardiovascular entries on Wikipedia: are they reliable learning resources for medical students?

Samy A. Azer · Nourah AlSwaidan · Lama Alshwairikh · Jumana M AlShammari

49 citations0/0 files storedBMJ Open

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Wikis in Education and Collaboration Health Literacy and Information Accessibility Social Media in Health Education

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate accuracy of content and readability level of English Wikipedia articles on cardiovascular diseases, using quality and readability tools. METHODS: Wikipedia was searched on the 6 October 2013 for articles on cardiovascular diseases. Using a modified DISCERN (DISCERN is an instrument widely used in assessing online resources), articles were independently scored by three assessors. The readability was calculated using Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level. The inter-rater agreement between evaluators was calculated using the Fleiss κ scale. RESULTS: This study was based on 47 English Wikipedia entries on cardiovascular diseases. The DISCERN scores had a median=33 (IQR=6). Four articles (8.5%) were of good quality (DISCERN score 40-50), 39 (83%) moderate (DISCERN 30-39) and 4 (8.5%) were poor (DISCERN 10-29). Although the entries covered the aetiology and the clinical picture, there were deficiencies in the pathophysiology of diseases, signs and symptoms, diagnostic approaches and treatment. The number of references varied from 1 to 127 references; 25.9±29.4 (mean±SD). Several problems were identified in the list of references and citations made in the articles. The readability of articles was 14.3±1.7 (mean±SD); consistent with the readability level for college students. In comparison, Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine 18th edition had more tables, less references and no significant difference in number of graphs, images, illustrations or readability level. The overall agreement between the evaluators was good (Fleiss κ 0.718 (95% CI 0.57 to 0.83). CONCLUSIONS: The Wikipedia entries are not aimed at a medical audience and should not be used as a substitute to recommended medical resources. Course designers and students should be aware that Wikipedia entries on cardiovascular diseases lack accuracy, predominantly due to errors of omission. Further improvement of the Wikipedia content of cardiovascular entries would be needed before they could be considered a supplementary resource.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

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

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 49 citations exist upstream.

References

2011Wikipedia: A Key Tool for Global Public Health Promotion 2012Rethinking the globalisation of problem‐based learning: how culture challenges self‐directed learning 2008Scope, Completeness, and Accuracy of Drug Information in Wikipedia 2009How and why do college students use Wikipedia?2011Quality of information sources about mental disorders: a comparison of Wikipedia with centrally controlled web and printed sources 2011Why not just Google it? An assessment of information literacy skills in a biomedical science curriculum 2010Wikipedia as an evidence source for nursing and healthcare students 2015Is Wikipedia a reliable learning resource for medical students? Evaluating respiratory topics

Cited by

2019Is Wikipedia a complete and accurate source for musculoskeletal anatomy?2020Wikipedia in Vascular Surgery Medical Education: Comparative Study 2019The Quality and Readability of English Wikipedia Anatomy Articles 2020Adding evidence of the effects of treatments into relevant Wikipedia pages: a randomised trial 2020Academic impact and perceived value of Wikipedia as a primary learning resource in higher education

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.