ArticleBMJ open2015
Accuracy and readability of cardiovascular entries on Wikipedia: are they reliable learning resources for medical students?
Article in BMJ open, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 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
25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Medical Education in a Post COVID-19 era - remote teaching methods for cardiovascular knowledge and skills.MedEdPublish (2016) · 2021Pooled it
- Adding evidence of the effects of treatments into relevant Wikipedia pages: a randomised trial.BMJ open · 2020Trial
- The Gut Microbiota: Emerging Evidence in Autoimmune and Inflammatory Diseases.Research (Washington, D.C.) · 2026Review
- Assessing the accuracy and readability of ChatGPT 4.0's original and simplified responses to common patient questions regarding periacetabular osteotomy.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2025Article
- Free Open Access Medical Education (FOAMed) use in medical students: a literature review.BMC medical education · 2025Review
- A Picture Paints a Thousand Words: Perspectives of the Use of Images and Videos of Physical Findings in Virtual OSCE Teaching Sessions.Advances in medical education and practice · 2024Article
- Artificial intelligence and obesity management: An Obesity Medicine Association (OMA) Clinical Practice Statement (CPS) 2023.Obesity pillars · 2023Article
- Comparing the effectiveness of asynchronous e-modules and didactic lectures to teach electrocardiogram interpretation to first year US medical students.BMC medical education · 2023Article
- Signaling pathways in rheumatoid arthritis: implications for targeted therapy.Signal transduction and targeted therapy · 2023Review
- Accuracy and Utility of Internet Image Search as a Learning Tool for Retinal Pathology.Journal of academic ophthalmology (2017) · 2023Article
- Assessment of the digestive system malignancy information in Wikipedia and Baidu Encyclopedia: a longitudinal study.Annals of translational medicine · 2022Article
- [Contraception in the German-language Wikipedia: a content and quality analysis].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2022Article
- Big Data in Cardiology: State-of-Art and Future Prospects.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Review
- Readability and quality of Wikipedia articles on pelvic floor disorders.International urogynecology journal · 2021Article
- Quality and readability of online information on idiopathic subglottic stenosis.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2021Article
- Evaluation of the Liver Disease Information in Baidu Encyclopedia and Wikipedia: Longitudinal Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Article
- A general method for estimating the prevalence of influenza-like-symptoms with Wikipedia data.PloS one · 2021Article
- Wikipedia in Vascular Surgery Medical Education: Comparative Study.JMIR medical education · 2020Article
- Situating Wikipedia as a health information resource in various contexts: A scoping review.PloS one · 2020Article
- Is Wikipedia a complete and accurate source for musculoskeletal anatomy?Surgical and radiologic anatomy : SRA · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate accuracy of content and readability level of English Wikipedia articles on cardiovascular diseases, using quality and readability tools.
methodsWikipedia was searched on the 6 October 2013 for articles on cardiovascular diseases. Using a modified DISCERN (DISCERN is an instrument widely used in assessing online resources), articles were independently scored by three assessors. The readability was calculated using Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level. The inter-rater agreement between evaluators was calculated using the Fleiss κ scale.
resultsThis study was based on 47 English Wikipedia entries on cardiovascular diseases. The DISCERN scores had a median=33 (IQR=6). Four articles (8.5%) were of good quality (DISCERN score 40-50), 39 (83%) moderate (DISCERN 30-39) and 4 (8.5%) were poor (DISCERN 10-29). Although the entries covered the aetiology and the clinical picture, there were deficiencies in the pathophysiology of diseases, signs and symptoms, diagnostic approaches and treatment. The number of references varied from 1 to 127 references; 25.9±29.4 (mean±SD). Several problems were identified in the list of references and citations made in the articles. The readability of articles was 14.3±1.7 (mean±SD); consistent with the readability level for college students. In comparison, Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine 18th edition had more tables, less references and no significant difference in number of graphs, images, illustrations or readability level. The overall agreement between the evaluators was good (Fleiss κ 0.718 (95% CI 0.57 to 0.83).
conclusionsThe Wikipedia entries are not aimed at a medical audience and should not be used as a substitute to recommended medical resources. Course designers and students should be aware that Wikipedia entries on cardiovascular diseases lack accuracy, predominantly due to errors of omission. Further improvement of the Wikipedia content of cardiovascular entries would be needed before they could be considered a supplementary resource.
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.