ArticlePloS one2020
Situating Wikipedia as a health information resource in various contexts: A scoping review.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 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
37 citing papers in PubMed.
- Wikipediautism: A Multilingual Analysis of Autism-Related Wikipedia Articles in Six Languages.Journal of autism and developmental disorders · 2026Article
- Assessing the suitability of ChatGPT in responding to public inquiries about dental crown restorations.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Evaluation of the artificial intelligence chatbots in frequently asked questions about retinitis pigmentosa: a comparative analysis between ChatGPT-4 and Gemini-2.0.International journal of retina and vitreous · 2025Article
- Augmenting Adherence: Improving Medication Compliance and Patient Education in Anti-Retroviral Therapy through Graphical Representation.Current HIV research · 2025Review
- Accuracy of ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-4o, Copilot, Gemini, Claude, and Perplexity in advising on lumbosacral radicular pain against clinical practice guidelines: cross-sectional study.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Article
- 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
- Influence of digital health literacy on online health-related behaviors influenced by internet advertising.BMC public health · 2024Article
- Comparing patient education tools for chronic pain medications: Artificial intelligence chatbot versus traditional patient information leaflets.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2024Article
- Quality of ChatGPT Responses to Frequently Asked Questions in Carpal Tunnel Release Surgery.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2024Article
- Citations in Wikipedia for understanding research reach.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2024Article
- Wikipedia as an academic service-learning tool in science and technology: higher education case from Siberia.Journal of community genetics · 2024Article
- The 2023 report of the Lancet Countdown on health and climate change: the imperative for a health-centred response in a world facing irreversible harms.Lancet (London, England) · 2023Review
- Leveraging Wikipedia in undergraduate health sciences education: a key tool for information literacy and knowledge translation.The journal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association · 2023Article
- The Promotion of Hearing Health through Wikipedia Campaigns: Article Quality and Reach Assessment.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- A systematic review of the effectiveness of patient education through patient portals.JAMIA open · 2023Review
- Wikipedia page views for health research: a review.Frontiers in big data · 2023Review
- Article
- Accuracy and Utility of Internet Image Search as a Learning Tool for Retinal Pathology.Journal of academic ophthalmology (2017) · 2023Article
- The 2022 report of the Lancet Countdown on health and climate change: health at the mercy of fossil fuels.Lancet (London, England) · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWikipedia's health content is the most frequently visited resource for health information on the internet. While the literature provides strong evidence for its high usage, a comprehensive literature review of Wikipedia's role within the health context has not yet been reported.
objectiveTo conduct a comprehensive review of peer-reviewed, published literature to learn what the existing body of literature says about Wikipedia as a health information resource and what publication trends exist, if any.
methodsA comprehensive literature search in OVID Medline, OVID Embase, CINAHL, LISTA, Wilson's Web, AMED, and Web of Science was performed. Through a two-stage screening process, records were excluded if: Wikipedia was not a major or exclusive focus of the article; Wikipedia was not discussed within the context of a health or medical topic; the article was not available in English, the article was irretrievable, or; the article was a letter, commentary, editorial, or popular media article.
results89 articles and conference proceedings were selected for inclusion in the review. Four categories of literature emerged: 1) studies that situate Wikipedia as a health information resource; 2) investigations into the quality of Wikipedia, 3) explorations of the utility of Wikipedia in education, and 4) studies that demonstrate the utility of Wikipedia in research.
conclusionThe literature positions Wikipedia as a prominent health information resource in various contexts for the public, patients, students, and practitioners seeking health information online. Wikipedia's health content is accessed frequently, and its pages regularly rank highly in Google search results. While Wikipedia itself is well into its second decade, the academic discourse around Wikipedia within the context of health is still young and the academic literature is limited when attempts are made to understand Wikipedia as a health information resource. Possibilities for future research will be discussed.
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.