ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2015
Utilizing the Wikidata system to improve the quality of medical content in Wikipedia in diverse languages: a pilot study.
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 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Quantifying domain-specific relevance of computational biology Wikipedia articles using TF-IDF and cosine similarity.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2026Article
- A framework for integrating biomedical knowledge in Wikidata with open biological and biomedical ontologies and MeSH keywords.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Public Awareness of the Fencing Response as an Indicator of Traumatic Brain Injury: Quantitative Study of Twitter and Wikipedia Data.JMIR formative research · 2023Article
- Characterizing domain-specific open educational resources by linking ISCB Communities of Special Interest to Wikipedia.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2022Article
- Situating Wikipedia as a health information resource in various contexts: A scoping review.PloS one · 2020Article
- ChlamBase: a curated model organism database for the Chlamydia research community.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2019Article
- Evolution of Wikipedia's medical content: past, present and future.Journal of epidemiology and community health · 2017Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWikipedia is an important source of medical information for both patients and medical professionals. Given its wide reach, improving the quality, completeness, and accessibility of medical information on Wikipedia could have a positive impact on global health.
objectiveWe created a prototypical implementation of an automated system for keeping drug-drug interaction (DDI) information in Wikipedia up to date with current evidence about clinically significant drug interactions. Our work is based on Wikidata, a novel, graph-based database backend of Wikipedia currently in development.
methodsWe set up an automated process for integrating data from the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) high priority DDI list into Wikidata. We set up exemplary implementations demonstrating how the DDI data we introduced into Wikidata could be displayed in Wikipedia articles in diverse languages. Finally, we conducted a pilot analysis to explore if adding the ONC high priority data would substantially enhance the information currently available on Wikipedia.
resultsWe derived 1150 unique interactions from the ONC high priority list. Integration of the potential DDI data from Wikidata into Wikipedia articles proved to be straightforward and yielded useful results. We found that even though the majority of current English Wikipedia articles about pharmaceuticals contained sections detailing contraindications, only a small fraction of articles explicitly mentioned interaction partners from the ONC high priority list. For 91.30% (1050/1150) of the interaction pairs we tested, none of the 2 articles corresponding to the interacting substances explicitly mentioned the interaction partner. For 7.21% (83/1150) of the pairs, only 1 of the 2 associated Wikipedia articles mentioned the interaction partner; for only 1.48% (17/1150) of the pairs, both articles contained explicit mentions of the interaction partner.
conclusionsOur prototype demonstrated that automated updating of medical content in Wikipedia through Wikidata is a viable option, albeit further refinements and community-wide consensus building are required before integration into public Wikipedia is possible. A long-term endeavor to improve the medical information in Wikipedia through structured data representation and automated workflows might lead to a significant improvement of the quality of medical information in one of the world's most popular Web resources.
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.