ArticleJMIR medical education2020
Wikipedia in Vascular Surgery Medical Education: Comparative Study.
Article in JMIR medical education, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- Quality Assessment of Videos About Dengue Fever on Douyin: Cross-Sectional Study.JMIR infodemiology · 2025Article
- Quality and reliability of Chinese short videos on TikTok related to chronic renal failure: cross-sectional study.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Search engines and short video apps as sources of information on acute pancreatitis in China: quality assessment and content assessment.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Evaluation of the information quality related to osteoporosis on TikTok.BMC public health · 2024Article
- Article
- Public Awareness of the Fencing Response as an Indicator of Traumatic Brain Injury: Quantitative Study of Twitter and Wikipedia Data.JMIR formative research · 2023Article
- Quality of Information in Gallstone Disease Videos on TikTok: Cross-sectional Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Article
- Translating and Adapting the DISCERN Instrument Into a Simplified Chinese Version and Validating Its Reliability: Development and Usability Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Article
- Accuracy and Utility of Internet Image Search as a Learning Tool for Retinal Pathology.Journal of academic ophthalmology (2017) · 2023Article
- The quality of information provided by the most popular dementia videos on TikTok.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- Google Images Search Results as a Resource in the Anatomy Laboratory: Rating of Educational Value.JMIR medical education · 2022Article
- Assessment of the digestive system malignancy information in Wikipedia and Baidu Encyclopedia: a longitudinal study.Annals of translational medicine · 2022Article
- Evaluation of Medical Information on Male Sexual Dysfunction on Baidu Encyclopedia and Wikipedia: Comparative Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Article
- Evaluation of the Liver Disease Information in Baidu Encyclopedia and Wikipedia: Longitudinal Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Article
- TikTok as a potential patient educational tool for thyroid-associated ophthalmopathy: A cross-sectional study.Digital healthArticle
- Review
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
backgroundMedical students commonly refer to Wikipedia as their preferred online resource for medical information. The quality and readability of articles about common vascular disorders on Wikipedia has not been evaluated or compared against a standard textbook of surgery.
objectiveThe aims of this study were to (1) compare the quality of Wikipedia articles to that of equivalent chapters in a standard undergraduate medical textbook of surgery, (2) identify any errors of omission in either resource, and (3) compare the readability of both resources using validated ease-of-reading and grade-level tools.
methodsUsing the Medical Council of Canada Objectives for the Qualifying Examination, 8 fundamental topics of vascular surgery were chosen. The articles were found on Wikipedia using Wikipedia's native search engine. The equivalent chapters were identified in Schwartz Principles of Surgery (ninth edition). Medical learners (n=2) assessed each of the texts on their original platforms to independently evaluate readability, quality, and errors of omission. Readability was evaluated with Flesch Reading Ease scores and 5 grade-level scores (Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, Gunning Fog Index, Coleman-Liau Index, Simple Measure of Gobbledygook Index, and Automated Readability Index), quality was evaluated using the DISCERN instrument, and errors of omission were evaluated using a standardized scoring system that was designed by the authors.
resultsFlesch Reading Ease scores suggested that Wikipedia (mean 30.5; SD 8.4) was significantly easier to read (P=.03) than Schwartz (mean 20.2; SD 9.0). The mean grade level (calculated using all grade-level indices) of the Wikipedia articles (mean 14.2; SD 1.3) was significantly different (P=.02) than the mean grade level of Schwartz (mean 15.9; SD 1.4). The quality of the text was also assessed using the DISCERN instrument and suggested that Schwartz (mean 71.4; SD 3.1) had a significantly higher quality (P=.002) compared to that of Wikipedia (mean 52.9; SD 11.4). Finally, the Wikipedia error of omission rate (mean 12.5; SD 6.8) was higher than that of Schwartz (mean 21.3; SD 1.9) indicating that there were significantly fewer errors of omission in the surgical textbook (P=.008).
conclusionsOnline resources are increasingly easier to access but can vary in quality. Based on this comparison, the authors of this study recommend the use of vascular surgery textbooks as a primary source of learning material because the information within is more consistent in quality and has fewer errors of omission. Wikipedia can be a useful resource for quick reference, particularly because of its ease of reading, but its vascular surgery articles require further development.
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.