ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2011
Wikipedia: a key tool for global public health promotion.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 77 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
77 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Collaborative writing applications in healthcare: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Medical wikis dedicated to clinical practice: a systematic review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2015Pooled it
- Physiotherapists' Use of Web-Based Information Resources to Fulfill Their Information Needs During a Theoretical Examination: Randomized Crossover Trial.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Trial
- Adding evidence of the effects of treatments into relevant Wikipedia pages: a randomised trial.BMJ open · 2020Trial
- Assessing the suitability of ChatGPT in responding to public inquiries about dental crown restorations.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Assessing ChatGPT's suitability in responding to the public's inquires on the effects of smoking on oral health.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Who are the "Heroes of CRISPR"? Public science communication on Wikipedia and the challenge of micro-notability.Public understanding of science (Bristol, England) · 2024Article
- Strategies for crowdsourcing hearing health information: a comparative study of educational programs and volunteer-based campaigns on Wikimedia.BMC public health · 2024Article
- Citations in Wikipedia for understanding research reach.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2024Article
- Not Just Mechanical Birthing Bodies: Birthing Consciousness and Birth Reflexes.The Journal of perinatal education · 2023Article
- Citation needed? Wikipedia bibliometrics during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic.GigaScience · 2022Article
- Readability and quality of Wikipedia articles on pelvic floor disorders.International urogynecology journal · 2021Article
- Developing a scalable framework for partnerships between health agencies and the Wikimedia ecosystem.Research ideas and outcomes · 2021Article
- Assessing Public Interest Based on Wikipedia's Most Visited Medical Articles During the SARS-CoV-2 Outbreak: Search Trends Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Article
- A general method for estimating the prevalence of influenza-like-symptoms with Wikipedia data.PloS one · 2021Article
- Information Needs and Information-Seeking Behavior of Italian Neurologists: Exploratory Mixed Methods Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Article
- Learning through Osmosis: A global Wikipedia editing course for medical students.MedEdPublish (2016) · 2020Article
- Situating Wikipedia as a health information resource in various contexts: A scoping review.PloS one · 2020Article
- Mapping anatomical related entities to human body parts based on wikipedia in discharge summaries.BMC bioinformatics · 2019Article
- Integrating Wikipedia Articles and Images into an Information Resource for Radiology Patients.Journal of digital imaging · 2019Article
17 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Internet has become an important health information resource for patients and the general public. Wikipedia, a collaboratively written Web-based encyclopedia, has become the dominant online reference work. It is usually among the top results of search engine queries, including when medical information is sought. Since April 2004, editors have formed a group called WikiProject Medicine to coordinate and discuss the English-language Wikipedia's medical content. This paper, written by members of the WikiProject Medicine, discusses the intricacies, strengths, and weaknesses of Wikipedia as a source of health information and compares it with other medical wikis. Medical professionals, their societies, patient groups, and institutions can help improve Wikipedia's health-related entries. Several examples of partnerships already show that there is enthusiasm to strengthen Wikipedia's biomedical content. Given its unique global reach, we believe its possibilities for use as a tool for worldwide health promotion are underestimated. We invite the medical community to join in editing Wikipedia, with the goal of providing people with free access to reliable, understandable, and up-to-date health information.
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.