ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2024
Quality of Male and Female Medical Content on English-Language Wikipedia: Quantitative Content Analysis.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Wikipediautism: A Multilingual Analysis of Autism-Related Wikipedia Articles in Six Languages.Journal of autism and developmental disorders · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWikipedia is the largest free online encyclopedia and the seventh most visited website worldwide, containing >45,000 freely accessible English-language medical articles accessed nearly 1.6 billion times annually. Concerns have been expressed about the balance of content related to biological sex on Wikipedia.
objectiveThis study aims to categorize the top 1000 most-read (most popular) English-language Wikipedia health articles for June 2019 according to the relevance of the article topic to each sex and quality.
methodsIn the first step, Wikipedia articles were identified using WikiProject Medicine Popular Pages. These were analyzed on 13 factors, including total views, article quality, and total number of references. In the second step, 2 general medical textbooks were used as comparators to assess whether Wikipedia's spread of articles was typical compared to the general medical coverage. According to the article's content, we proposed criteria with 5 categories: 1="exclusively female," 2="predominantly female but can also affect male individuals," 3="not sex specific or neutral," 4=predominantly male but can affect female individuals," and 5="exclusively male."
resultsOf the 1000 Wikipedia health articles, 933 (93.3%) were not sex specific and 67 (6.7%) were sex specific. There was no statistically significant difference in the number of reads per month between the sex-specific and non-sex-specific articles (P=.29). Coverage of female topics was higher (50/1000, 5%) than male topics (17/1000, 1.7%; this difference was also observed for the 2 medical textbooks, in which 90.2% (2330/2584) of content was not sex specific, female topics accounted for 8.1% (209/2584), and male topics for accounted for 1.7% (45/2584; statistically significant difference; Fisher exact test P=.03). Female-category articles were ranked higher on the Wikipedia medical topic importance list (top, high, or mid importance) than male-category articles (borderline statistical significance; Fisher exact test P=.05). Female articles had a higher number of total and unique references; a slightly higher number of page watchers, pictures, and available languages; and lower number of edits than male articles (all were statistically nonsignificant).
conclusionsAcross several metrics, a sample of popular Wikipedia health-related articles for both sexes had comparable quality. Wikipedia had a lower number of female articles and a higher number of neutral articles relative to the 2 medical textbooks. These differences were small, but statistically significant. Higher exclusively female coverage, compared to exclusively male coverage, in Wikipedia articles was similar to the 2 medical textbooks and can be explained by inclusion of sections on obstetrics and gynecology. This is unlike the imbalance seen among biographies of living people, in which approximately 77.6% pertain to male individuals. Although this study included a small sample of articles, the spread of Wikipedia articles may reflect the readership and the population's content consumption at a given time. Further study of a larger sample of Wikipedia articles would be valuable.
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.