ArticleAtencion primaria2013
[Presence and adequacy of pharmaceutical preparations in the Spanish edition of Wikipedia].
Article in Atencion primaria, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Population interest in and adequacy of the information on the safety of antineoplastic agents in the Spanish edition of Wikipedia.PloS one · 2025Article
- Antibiotic Infographics Available on the Internet: Documentary Quality, Purpose, and Appropriateness as Educational Tools on Antimicrobial Resistance.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo determine the presence, and to evaluate the adequacy of pharmaceutical preparations in the Spanish edition of Wikipedia.
designDescriptive cross-sectional study.
settingthe terms studied were obtained from the Vademecum, UBM Medica Spain S.A, (http://vademécum.es).
participantsthe sample was calculated by simple random sampling without replacement from the active ingredients present in the Vademecum, making the estimation of population parameters (expected value of approximately 0.5; 0.05 range accuracy and confidence level=0.95) in an infinite population.
methodThe existence and adequacy of the terminology was observed by accessing the Spanish edition of Wikipedia. The term was considered adequate when the information contained the proper use, dosage and adverse effects. MAIN MEASUREMENTS: The qualitative binary variable yes/no (presence of the pharmaceutical drug, use, posology, adverse effects, adequacy) were described by frequency and percentage, quantitative (number of queries, update) using mean and standard deviation. The existences of an association between qualitative variables were analyzed using chi-square, and significance of the differences of means for independent samples, using the Student t test.
resultsOf the sample studied (n=386), 171 terms were found, with 15 being adequate. Significant differences were observed between adequacy and dose (P<.001) and adverse effects (P<.001), but not with use (P=.193).
conclusionsPharmaceutical preparation entries in the Spanish edition of Wikipedia are still insufficient and the adequacy of the information remains inconsistent.
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.