ArticleBMC medical education2015
Wikipedia--challenges and new horizons in enhancing medical education.
Article in BMC medical education, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 52 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Google Images Search Results as a Resource in the Anatomy Laboratory: Rating of Educational Value.JMIR medical education · 2022Article
- Creating Wikipedia articles on health and technology topics can empower the writers and benefit the community.BMC medical education · 2022Article
- Citation needed? Wikipedia bibliometrics during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic.GigaScience · 2022Article
- Situating Wikipedia as a health information resource in various contexts: A scoping review.PloS one · 2020Article
- The Most Influential Medical Journals According to Wikipedia: Quantitative Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2019Article
- How Do Legal Experts Cope With Medical Reports and Forensic Evidence? The Experiences, Perceptions, and Narratives of Swiss Judges and Other Legal Experts.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2019Article
- Pharmacy students can improve access to quality medicines information by editing Wikipedia articles.BMC medical education · 2018Article
- RevManHAL: towards automatic text generation in systematic reviews.Systematic reviews · 2017Article
- Gene Wiki Reviews-Raising the quality and accessibility of information about the human genome.Gene · 2016Article
- Prebiotics: why definitions matter.Current opinion in biotechnology · 2016Review
- Ten Commandments for patient-centred treatment.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2015Article
- 'Background' and 'foreground' knowledge: targeting learning materials to trainees' needs.BJPsych bulletin · 2015Article
- Wikipedia: A Medical Student Educational Project to Edit Wikipedia in Preparation for Practicing Evidence-Based Pain Medicine.Journal of medical education and curricular developmentArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWikipedia gains growing attention as a provider of health information. This study aimed to investigate the use, relevance and challenges of Wikipedia among medical students.
methodsAn online questionnaire was made accessible to students at five medical universities in Germany, Austria, and Norway. Besides demographical data, the questions covered the role of Wikipedia in the academic life of medical students. The questionnaire investigated if the students had ever found erroneous medical entries and whether they corrected these.
resultsA frequent use of Wikipedia in general is statistically significant correlated with a frequent use in medical studies (p < 0.001). Information retrieved from Wikipedia is predominantly critically appraised either by comparing it to profound knowledge (79%) and/or to specific literature (75%). Despite most (97%) respondents disclosed that they already had found false information in Wikipedia, recognized errors were seldomly corrected (~20%).
conclusionsThe information retrieved from Wikipedia is critically appraised. However, we found shortcomings in handling erroneous entries. We argue for professional responsibility among medical students in dealing with this dynamic resource. Moreover, we encourage medical schools to supplement information to Wikipedia to further benefit from the vast possibilities of this platform.
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.