ArticleJournal of epidemiology and community health2017
Evolution of Wikipedia's medical content: past, present and future.
Article in Journal of epidemiology and community health, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 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
26 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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
- Implementing a Spanish Wikipedia elective for medical students.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2026Article
- Who are the "Heroes of CRISPR"? Public science communication on Wikipedia and the challenge of micro-notability.Public understanding of science (Bristol, England) · 2024Article
- Strategies for crowdsourcing hearing health information: a comparative study of educational programs and volunteer-based campaigns on Wikimedia.BMC public health · 2024Article
- Quality of Male and Female Medical Content on English-Language Wikipedia: Quantitative Content Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Article
- Citations in Wikipedia for understanding research reach.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2024Article
- Article
- Preventing Occupational Hearing Loss: 50 Years of Research and Recommendations from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.Seminars in hearing · 2023Review
- A Study on User-Oriented Subjects of Child Abuse on Wikipedia: Temporal Analysis of Wikipedia History Versions and Traffic Data.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Article
- The Promotion of Hearing Health through Wikipedia Campaigns: Article Quality and Reach Assessment.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Wikipedia page views for health research: a review.Frontiers in big data · 2023Review
- Characterizing domain-specific open educational resources by linking ISCB Communities of Special Interest to Wikipedia.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 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
- Using logical constraints to validate statistical information about disease outbreaks in collaborative knowledge graphs: the case of COVID-19 epidemiology in Wikidata.PeerJ. Computer science · 2022Article
- Introducing the EMPIRE Index: A novel, value-based metric framework to measure the impact of medical publications.PloS one · 2022Article
- Intercessory Rote Prayer, Life Longevity and the Mortality of Roman Catholic Bishops: An Exploratory Study.Journal of religion and health · 2021Observational
- Ecology of the digital world of Wikipedia.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Assessing Public Interest Based on Wikipedia's Most Visited Medical Articles During the SARS-CoV-2 Outbreak: Search Trends Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Article
- Article
- Situating Wikipedia as a health information resource in various contexts: A scoping review.PloS one · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
As one of the most commonly read online sources of medical information, Wikipedia is an influential public health platform. Its medical content, community, collaborations and challenges have been evolving since its creation in 2001, and engagement by the medical community is vital for ensuring its accuracy and completeness. Both the encyclopaedia's internal metrics as well as external assessments of its quality indicate that its articles are highly variable, but improving. Although content can be edited by anyone, medical articles are primarily written by a core group of medical professionals. Diverse collaborative ventures have enhanced medical article quality and reach, and opportunities for partnerships are more available than ever. Nevertheless, Wikipedia's medical content and community still face significant challenges, and a socioecological model is used to structure specific recommendations. We propose that the medical community should prioritise the accuracy of biomedical information in the world's most consulted encyclopaedia.
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.