Is Wikipedia unsuitable as a clinical information resource for medical students?
|Is Wikipedia unsuitable as a clinical information resource for medical students?|
|Authors:||Michael P. Pender, Kaye Lasserre, Christopher Del Mar, Lisa Kruesi, Satyamurthy Anuradha|
|Citation:||Medical Teacher 31 (12): 1095-1096. 2009|
|Database(s):||Google Scholar cites PubMed (PMID/20050104)|
|Web:||Bing Google Yahoo! — Google PDF|
|Article:||BASE Google Scholar PubMed|
|Restricted:||DTU Digital Library|
|Format:||BibTeX Template from PMID|
Is Wikipedia unsuitable as a clinical information resource for medical students? is a short letter reporting the examination of the quality of online medical information in Wikipedia with eMedicine and AccessMedicine and UpToDate.
The examined the topics conjunctivitis, multiple sclerosis and otitis media.
The 3 experts were blineded an ranked the content based on "accuracy; coverage; concision; currency and overall suitability for providing a foundation of learning for the practice of medicine". 2 librarians also examined resources for "cost and login requirements; ease of finding and navigating the information and the quality of presentation."
The study is the same as reported in the conference paper Putting Wikipedia to the test: a case study.
- Accessibility of Wikipedia compared to others are described differently between the two versions:
- Journal letter: "The entries in Wikipedia, in comparison with the other resources, were easy to access, navigate and well presented."
- Conference paper " ... navigating around the information was simpler in UpToDate and eMedicine than in Wikipedia ...