ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2015
Wikipedia and medicine: quantifying readership, editors, and the significance of natural language.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
45 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- What Are We Looking for in Computer-Based Learning Interventions in Medical Education? A Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2016Pooled it
- Adding evidence of the effects of treatments into relevant Wikipedia pages: a randomised trial.BMJ open · 2020Trial
- Wikipediautism: A Multilingual Analysis of Autism-Related Wikipedia Articles in Six Languages.Journal of autism and developmental disorders · 2026Article
- Fertility care in the age of algorithms: opportunities and risks of AI and social media integration in reproductive medicine.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2026Review
- The COVID-19 pandemic and the worldwide online interest in telepsychiatry: an infodemiological study from 2004 to 2022.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Article
- Changes in Reproductive Health Information-Seeking Behaviors After the Dobbs Decision: Systematic Search of the Wikimedia Database.JMIR infodemiology · 2024Article
- Wikipedia is a highly accessed although unreliable source of knowledge on cardiopulmonary resuscitation.Clinical and experimental emergency medicine · 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
- Article
- The Promotion of Hearing Health through Wikipedia Campaigns: Article Quality and Reach Assessment.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Diagnostic Accuracy of Differential-Diagnosis Lists Generated by Generative Pretrained Transformer 3 Chatbot for Clinical Vignettes with Common Chief Complaints: A Pilot Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- Wikipedia page views for health research: a review.Frontiers in big data · 2023Review
- Assessment of the digestive system malignancy information in Wikipedia and Baidu Encyclopedia: a longitudinal study.Annals of translational medicine · 2022Article
- Evaluation of Medical Information on Male Sexual Dysfunction on Baidu Encyclopedia and Wikipedia: Comparative Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Article
- [Contraception in the German-language Wikipedia: a content and quality analysis].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2022Article
- Library instruction and Wikipedia: investigating students' perceived information literacy, lifelong learning, and social responsibility through Wikipedia editing.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2022Article
- Citation needed? Wikipedia bibliometrics during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic.GigaScience · 2022Article
- Self-removal of long-acting reversible contraception: A content analysis of YouTube videos.Contraception · 2021Article
- Developing a scalable framework for partnerships between health agencies and the Wikimedia ecosystem.Research ideas and outcomes · 2021Article
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
backgroundWikipedia is a collaboratively edited encyclopedia. One of the most popular websites on the Internet, it is known to be a frequently used source of health care information by both professionals and the lay public.
objectiveThis paper quantifies the production and consumption of Wikipedia's medical content along 4 dimensions. First, we measured the amount of medical content in both articles and bytes and, second, the citations that supported that content. Third, we analyzed the medical readership against that of other health care websites between Wikipedia's natural language editions and its relationship with disease prevalence. Fourth, we surveyed the quantity/characteristics of Wikipedia's medical contributors, including year-over-year participation trends and editor demographics.
methodsUsing a well-defined categorization infrastructure, we identified medically pertinent English-language Wikipedia articles and links to their foreign language equivalents. With these, Wikipedia can be queried to produce metadata and full texts for entire article histories. Wikipedia also makes available hourly reports that aggregate reader traffic at per-article granularity. An online survey was used to determine the background of contributors. Standard mining and visualization techniques (eg, aggregation queries, cumulative distribution functions, and/or correlation metrics) were applied to each of these datasets. Analysis focused on year-end 2013, but historical data permitted some longitudinal analysis.
resultsWikipedia's medical content (at the end of 2013) was made up of more than 155,000 articles and 1 billion bytes of text across more than 255 languages. This content was supported by more than 950,000 references. Content was viewed more than 4.88 billion times in 2013. This makes it one of if not the most viewed medical resource(s) globally. The core editor community numbered less than 300 and declined over the past 5 years. The members of this community were half health care providers and 85.5% (100/117) had a university education.
conclusionsAlthough Wikipedia has a considerable volume of multilingual medical content that is extensively read and well-referenced, the core group of editors that contribute and maintain that content is small and shrinking in size.
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.