Is Wikipedia unsuitable as a clinical information resource for medical students?

From Brede Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Paper (help)
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)
DOI: 10.3109/01421590903498412.
Link(s):
Search
Web: Bing Google Yahoo!Google PDF
Article: BASE Google Scholar PubMed
Restricted: DTU Digital Library
Other: NIF
Services
Format: BibTeX Template from PMID
Extract:

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.

[edit] Critique

  • 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 ...
Personal tools