ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA
Wikipedia and osteosarcoma: a trustworthy patients' information?
Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
29 citing papers in PubMed, 87 citations in OpenAlex.
- Adding evidence of the effects of treatments into relevant Wikipedia pages: a randomised trial.BMJ open · 2020Trial
- ChatGPT 3.5 Better Improves Comprehensibility of English, than Spanish, Generated Responses to Osteosarcoma Questions.Journal of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- Population interest in and adequacy of the information on the safety of antineoplastic agents in the Spanish edition of Wikipedia.PloS one · 2025Article
- Exploring trust dynamics in health information systems: the impact of patients' health conditions on information source preferences.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- Artificial intelligence large language model ChatGPT: is it a trustworthy and reliable source of information for sarcoma patients?Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- Are ChatGPT's Free-Text Responses on Periprosthetic Joint Infections of the Hip and Knee Reliable and Useful?Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Situating Wikipedia as a health information resource in various contexts: A scoping review.PloS one · 2020Article
- Is Wikipedia a complete and accurate source for musculoskeletal anatomy?Surgical and radiologic anatomy : SRA · 2019Article
- Accuracy of Freely Available Information About Rhegmatogenous Retinal Detachment on the Internet.JAMA ophthalmology · 2019Article
- Evolution of Wikipedia's medical content: past, present and future.Journal of epidemiology and community health · 2017Article
- Downregulation of calbindin 1, a calcium-binding protein, reduces the proliferation of osteosarcoma cells.Oncology letters · 2017Article
- Like or Dislike? Impact of Facebook on Ewing Sarcoma Treatment.JMIR cancer · 2016Article
- Validation and Assessment of a Technology Familiarity Score in Patients Attending a Symptomatic Breast Clinic.World journal of surgery · 2015Article
- Opportunities and ethical challenges for the practice of medicine in the digital era.Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine · 2015Article
- Wikipedia--challenges and new horizons in enhancing medical education.BMC medical education · 2015Article
- Global disease monitoring and forecasting with Wikipedia.PLoS computational biology · 2014Article
- [Osteosarcoma: reliability and quality of the information in the internet].Wiener medizinische Wochenschrift (1946) · 2014Article
- References that anyone can edit: review of Wikipedia citations in peer reviewed health science literature.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2014Article
- Public knowledge and preventive behavior during a large-scale Salmonella outbreak: results from an online survey in the Netherlands.BMC public health · 2014Article
- Quality of patient health information on the Internet: reviewing a complex and evolving landscape.The Australasian medical journal · 2014Review
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.