Background Sexual dysfunction is a private set of disorders that may cause stigma for patients when discussing their private problems with doctors. They might also feel reluctant to initiate a face-to-face consultation. Internet searches are gradually becoming the first choice for people with sexual dysfunction to obtain health information. Globally, Wikipedia is the most popular and consulted validated encyclopedia website in the English-speaking world. Baidu Encyclopedia is becoming the dominant source in Chinese-speaking regions; however, the objectivity and readability of the content are yet to be evaluated. Objective Hence, we aimed to evaluate the reliability, readability, and objectivity of male sexual dysfunction content on Wikipedia and Baidu Encyclopedia. Methods The Chinese Baidu Encyclopedia and English Wikipedia were investigated. All possible synonymous and derivative keywords for the most common male sexual dysfunction, erectile dysfunction, premature ejaculation, and their most common complication, chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome, were screened. Two doctors evaluated the articles on Chinese Baidu Encyclopedia and English Wikipedia. The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) scoring system, DISCERN instrument, and Global Quality Score (GQS) were used to assess the quality of disease-related articles. Results The total DISCERN scores (P=.002) and JAMA scores (P=.001) for Wikipedia were significantly higher than those of Baidu Encyclopedia; there was no statistical difference between the GQS scores (P=.31) for these websites. Specifically, the DISCERN Section 1 score (P<.001) for Wikipedia was significantly higher than that of Baidu Encyclopedia, while the differences between the DISCERN Section 2 and 3 scores (P=.14 and P=.17, respectively) were minor. Furthermore, Wikipedia had a higher proportion of high total DISCERN scores (P<.001) and DISCERN Section 1 scores (P<.001) than Baidu Encyclopedia. Baidu Encyclopedia and Wikipedia both had low DISCERN Section 2 and 3 scores (P=.49 and P=.99, respectively), and most of these scores were low quality. Conclusions Wikipedia provides more reliable, higher quality, and more objective information than Baidu Encyclopedia. Yet, there are opportunities for both platforms to vastly improve their content quality. Moreover, both sites had similar poor quality content on treatment options. Joint efforts of physicians, physician associations, medical institutions, and internet platforms are needed to provide reliable, readable, and objective knowledge about diseases.

BACKGROUND Patients who suffered from sexual dysfunctions may be too embarrassed or reluctant to discuss their issues with the doctor. Internet search is gradually becoming the first choice for these people to obtain health information. Wikipedia is the most popular and consulted encyclopedia website in English, so is Baidu Encyclopedia in Chinese. However, no study has evaluated the objectivity and readability of the content on male sexual dysfunction in Wikipedia and the Baidu Encyclopedia. OBJECTIVE To assess the reliability, readability, and objectivity of Wikipedia and Baidu Encyclopedia content on male sexual dysfunctions. METHODS The Baidu Encyclopedia (in Chinese) and Wikipedia (in English) were investigated. All possible synonymous and derivative keywords for each term were screened. Two doctors evaluated the articles in Baidu Encyclopedia (in Chinese) and Wikipedia (in English), respectively. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to evaluate inter-observer reliability. The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) scoring system, the DISCERN instrument, and the Global Quality Score (GQS) were used to assess the quality of disease-related articles. RESULTS As the most common male sexual dysfunctions, erectile dysfunction, premature ejaculation, and their most common complication chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome were assessed. The ICC results showed good consistency between the two reviewers on GQS scores (ICC=0.871), JAMA scores (ICC=0.910), and DISCERN scores (ICC=0.820). Overall, Wikipedia had a significantly higher DISCERN total score (P=0.0020), DISCERN section 1 score (P<0.0001), and JAMA score (P=0.0011) than those of Baidu Encyclopedia. However, there was no statistical difference between the DISCERN section 2 (P=0.1377), DISCERN section 3 (P=0.1736), and GQS scores (P=0.3082) of these two websites. CONCLUSIONS Wikipedia provides more reliable, higher quality, and more objective information than Baidu Encyclopedia, while they have a similar impact on patients' choice of treatment options and that the websites are similar in terms of the flow and ease of use. Joint efforts of physicians, physician associations, medical institutions, and Internet platforms are needed to provide reliable, readable, and objective knowledge about diseases. CLINICALTRIAL NA

BACKGROUND Baidu Index is an open tool that provides information about trends and changes in online interest in selected keywords and topics over time. The analysis of Baidu queries has become a valuable tool for researchers to explore and predict human behavior, disease occurrence and outbreaks. Although Baidu Index has been applied to many fields in China, there is no research to describe a specific methodology framework of Baidu Index in detail. OBJECTIVE Make a retrospective analysis of the application of Baidu Index in the medical field, and summarize the methodology of Baidu Index for infodemiology and infoveillance. METHODS We searched the PubMed database for articles from January 2003 to January 2022 with the keywords: ‘Baidu Index’, and the methods of applying Baidu Index in all articles were reviewed and summarized. Combined with the operational guidance from the Baidu Index official website and our previous research, we explained the methodology of applying Baidu Index. RESULTS A total of 134 articles were detected. According to the types of diseases concerned in the article, they are roughly divided into: covid-19 (21/134, 15.67%), influenza (8/134, 5.97%), infectious diseases (15/134, 11.19%), sexually transmitted diseases (4/134, 2.99%), others (25/134, 18.66%), and unrelated articles (61/134, 45.52%). The ‘search index’, ‘demand map’, and ‘user portrait’ are the three main parts of Baidu Index. Each part corresponds to different data types and reflects different characteristics. CONCLUSIONS The methodological framework for research using the Baidu index presented in this paper is essential to provide guidance for research using the Baidu index in health assessment and, more importantly, to help researchers, health officials, and organizations avoid common errors that jeopardize the validity of results. CLINICALTRIAL NA