Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33797592›Full record

ArticleInternational urogynecology journal2021

Readability and quality of Wikipedia articles on pelvic floor disorders.

Stephanie J Handler, Sarah E Eckhardt, Yoko Takashima, Ashaki M Jackson, Christina Truong, Tajnoos Yazdany

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International urogynecology journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Epistemic compression in large language model explanations of the gut-liver axis.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. [Contraception in the German-language Wikipedia: a content and quality analysis].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2022
    Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Stephanie J HandlerDivision of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Los Angeles County Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, 1000 W. Carson Street, Torrance, CA, 90509, USA. stephanie.handler@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5000-9191
Sarah E EckhardtDivision of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Los Angeles County Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, 1000 W. Carson Street, Torrance, CA, 90509, USA.
Yoko TakashimaDivision of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Los Angeles County Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, 1000 W. Carson Street, Torrance, CA, 90509, USA.
Ashaki M JacksonLos Angeles Biomedical Research Institute, Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, CA, USA.
Christina TruongDivision of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Los Angeles County Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, 1000 W. Carson Street, Torrance, CA, 90509, USA.
Tajnoos YazdanyDivision of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Los Angeles County Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, 1000 W. Carson Street, Torrance, CA, 90509, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introduction and hypothesisThis study is aimed at evaluating the readability and quality of Wikipedia articles on pelvic floor disorders (PFD) and comparing their content with International Urogynecological Association patient education leaflets.

methodsReadability was assessed using six different readability scales, including the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) Index, which is considered superior for scoring healthcare information. Quality was assessed by three female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery fellows using the modified DISCERN instrument. DISCERN is validated to evaluate the quality of written consumer health information; it was subsequently modified by health education researchers to enable the evaluation of Wikipedia articles.

resultsWe evaluated 30 Wikipedia articles that correlated with 29 International Urogynecological Association leaflets. The mean SMOG score of the Wikipedia articles was 12.0 ± 2.1 (12th-grade reading level) whereas the mean SMOG score of the International Urological Association (IUGA) leaflets was 3.4 ± 0.3 (third-grade reading level, p < 0.001). The mean modified DISCERN score of the Wikipedia articles was 34.43 ± 5.90 (moderate quality); however, the mean modified DISCERN score of the IUGA literature was 45.02 ± 1.36 (good quality, p < 0.001).

conclusionsWikipedia articles on PFD are neither readable nor reliable: they require a 12th-grade-level education for comprehension and are merely rated moderate in quality. In comparison, IUGA leaflets require a third-grade education for comprehension and are rated good in quality. Urogynecological providers should provide appropriate health education materials to patients, as Wikipedia is both a popular and sometimes inaccurate resource for patients.

Indexed as

Consumer Health InformationPelvic Floor DisordersComprehensionEducational StatusFemaleHealth EducationHumansInternetDISCERN instrumentLearning resourcesPatient educationReadabilitySelf-regulated learningWikipedia

Identifiers

PMID33797592

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.