Completeness, accuracy, and readability of Wikipedia as a reference for patient medication information

Candelario, Danielle M.; Vazquez, Victoria; Jackson, W. Clay; Reilly, Timothy P.

doi:10.1016/j.japh.2016.12.063

Cited by 22 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In a previous study evaluating the reading level of Wikipedia patient medication information, including 33 of the top 200 drugs of 2012, the Flesch‐Kincaid grade level score was found to be 10.26 5 . The resources that patients will most likely be exposed to tend to have a higher reading level than those that are typically accessed by health‐care professionals.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…2 Of note, because the Flesch-Kinkaid can underestimate reading level, it is possible that the true reading level of Lexi-comp patient drug information may be higher In a previous study evaluating the reading level of Wikipedia patient medication information, including 33 of the top 200 drugs of 2012, the Flesch-Kincaid grade level score was found to be 10.26. 5 The resources that patients will most likely be exposed to tend to have a higher reading level than those that are typically accessed by level score is the most commonly used tool in daily practice, grade levels and readability can vary among different tests. The Flesch-Kinkaid score typically results in lower scores than other readability tests like the simple measure of gobbledygook (SMOG) readability formula.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evaluation of the reading level of commonly used medication‐related patient education sources

Perez

Covert

Lewis

2020

J Am Coll Clin Pharm

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionTo improve comprehension of medical care, the Joint Commission recommends that patient education materials (PEMS) be written at a fifth‐grade reading level or below.ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the compliance of commonly used tertiary drug references to Joint Commission standards.MethodsPEMs for the top 100 most prescribed medications in 2017 were obtained from commonly used drug information tertiary references (Lexi‐comp patient drug information, Micromedex Care Notes, Micromedex Med Essential Fact Sheets, Medline Plus, and Drugs.com) to evaluate readability. The grade reading level of each medication‐related PEM was evaluated using the Flesch‐Kincaid Grade Level test and compared with a one‐way analysis of variance using correlated samples and Tukey's post‐hoc test for significance between groups.ResultsThe mean grade reading levels of Lexi‐comp, Micromedex Care Notes, Micromedex Med Essential Fact Sheets, Medline Plus, and Drugs.com were 4.2, 7.5, 7.8, 9.3, and 10.4, respectively. Lexi‐comp achieved a reading level at or below fifth grade for 99% of medications while Micromedex Med Essential Fact sheets was the next highest at 33%. No other reference contained drug information at or below a fifth‐grade reading level.ConclusionLexi‐comp patient drug information consistently met the Joint Commission recommendation for medical information at or below a fifth‐grade reading level, whereas Micromedex Med Essential Fact Sheets met this recommendation approximately one‐third of the time. When providing drug information resources to patients, health‐care providers should be diligent in selecting sources that meet the Joint Commission recommendations.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of the reading level of commonly used medication‐related patient education sources

Perez

Covert

Lewis

2020

J Am Coll Clin Pharm

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the extant literature, Azer et al [ 14 ] found that pages related to cardiovascular diseases were characterized by a readability score of 14.3 (SD 1.7) measured with the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, consistent with the readability level typical of university students. Candelario and colleagues, assessing medication guide-related Wikipedia pages, found that Wikipedia medication pages were characterized by a Flesch Reading Ease score of 52.93 and a Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level of 10.26, indicating that the Wikipedia pages were more difficult to read than their corresponding product medication guides [ 15 ]. Seth and coworkers [ 16 ] systematically investigated the readability of lymphedema-related online material and assessed 152 patient articles.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Readability of Wikipedia Pages on Autoimmune Disorders: Systematic Quantitative Assessment

Watad¹,

Bragazzi²,

Brigo³

et al. 2017

J Med Internet Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundIn the era of new information and communication technologies, the Internet is being increasingly accessed for health-related information. Indeed, recently published patient surveys of people with autoimmune disorders confirmed that the Internet was reported as one of the most important health information sources. Wikipedia, a free online encyclopedia launched in 2001, is generally one of the most visited websites worldwide and is often consulted for health-related information.ObjectiveThe main objective of this investigation was to quantitatively assess whether the Wikipedia pages related to autoimmune disorders can be easily accessed by patients and their families, in terms of readability.MethodsWe obtained and downloaded a list of autoimmune disorders from the American Autoimmune Related Diseases Association (AARDA) website. We analyzed Wikipedia articles for their overall level of readability with 6 different quantitative readability scales: (1) the Flesch Reading Ease, (2) the Gunning Fog Index, (3) the Coleman-Liau Index, (4) the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, (5) the Automated Readability Index (ARI), and (6) the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG). Further, we investigated the correlation between readability and clinical, pathological, and epidemiological parameters. Moreover, each Wikipedia analysis was assessed according to its content, breaking down the readability indices by main topic of each part (namely, pathogenesis, treatment, diagnosis, and prognosis plus a section containing paragraphs not falling into any of the previous categories).ResultsWe retrieved 134 diseases from the AARDA website. The Flesch Reading Ease yielded a mean score of 24.34 (SD 10.73), indicating that the sites were very difficult to read and best understood by university graduates, while mean Gunning Fog Index and ARI scores were 16.87 (SD 2.03) and 14.06 (SD 2.12), respectively. The Coleman-Liau Index and the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level yielded mean scores of 14.48 (SD 1.57) and 14.86 (1.95), respectively, while the mean SMOG score was 15.38 (SD 1.37). All the readability indices confirmed that the sites were suitable for a university graduate reading level. We found no correlation between readability and clinical, pathological, and epidemiological parameters. Differences among the different sections of the Wikipedia pages were statistically significant.ConclusionsWikipedia pages related to autoimmune disorders are characterized by a low level of readability. The onus is, therefore, on physicians and health authorities to improve the health literacy skills of patients and their families and to create, together with patients themselves, disease-specific readable sites, disseminating highly accessible health-related online information, in terms of both clarity and conciseness.

show abstract

“…That said, the methodology is structured and straight-forward and the study reproducible thus providing a mechanism for further research with a more extensive scope. This study adds to the significant body of literature studying the currency, accuracy, and comprehensiveness of medical information found in Wikipedia compared to other resources including textbooks (Kräenbring et al, 2014), Micromedex (Reilly, Jackson, Berger, & Candelario, 2016) and medication guides (Candelario, Vazquez, Jackson, & Reilly, 2017).…”

Section: Commentarymentioning

confidence: 99%

Lexicomp Provides More Comprehensive Drug Information than Wikipedia in Small Sample Comparison

Alcock

2019

EBLIP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A Review of: Hunter, J. A., Lee, T., & Persaud, N. (2018). A comparison of the content and primary literature support for online medication information provided by Lexicomp and Wikipedia. Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA, 106(3), 352-360. http://dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2018.256 Abstract Objective – To compare the content veracity and comprehensiveness of Lexicomp and Wikipedia with respect to drug information. Design – Comparative study. Subjects – Lexicomp and Wikipedia. Methods – Five of the six most commonly prescribed medications in Canada were selected for content comparison in both Lexicomp and Wikipedia (levothyroxine, atorvastatin, pantoprazole, acetylsalicylic acid, and metformin). Three categories compared included dose and instructions, uses, and adverse effects or warnings; sixteen subcategories were identified to provide further comparative detail. Five outcomes were assessed using a rating scale to identify the presence or absence of each subcategory for each drug entry: present in neither source, present in Wikipedia but not Lexicomp, present in Lexicomp but not in Wikipedia, present in both without discrepancies, and present in both with discrepancies. The only subcategory meeting the criteria for “present in both with discrepancies” for all five medications was adverse reactions, indicating that the information in each resource differed. A “fact-checking literature search” in MEDLINE and EMBASE as well as searches in the USFDA Prescribing Information (supplemental index) (FDA PIs) and the FDA Adverse Events Reporting Systems (FDAERS) were used to determine the veracity of the discrepancies. Quantitative assessment was used to determine how comprehensive the entries were in terms of the number of times in which each resource provided subcategory information. Adverse reaction information was expressed as a percentage based on the number of adverse reactions identified in the sources. Main Results – Overall, Lexicomp was shown to provide more comprehensive information than Wikipedia. In the subheading analysis, there was no instance in which Wikipedia contained information while Lexicomp did not, while in over half of instances Lexicomp only contained the information. 18% of subheading information was found in both with discrepancies and 20% was found in both without discrepancies. Only 10% of instances were not present in Lexicomp or Wikipedia. Detailed dosing information was consistently present in Lexicomp for all five medications while only general dosage information was present in just two instances in Wikipedia. Of all the subcategory comparisons, adverse reactions was the only one identified as “present with discrepancies” for all medications being compared; MEDLINE, EMBASE, FDA PIs and the FAERS dashboard searches were performed for a total of 309 discrepant adverse reactions. 63% (191/302) of the adverse reactions listed in Lexicomp were supported by the literature retrieved from MEDLINE and EMBASE compared to 100% (7/7) of those listed in Wikipedia. Of the Lexicomp adverse reactions unsupported by the peer-reviewed literature, 17% were supported from information found in FDA PIs and 90% supported from information found in the FAERS dashboard. A “substantial proportion” of adverse events listed in Lexicomp were not supported in any retrieved literature. Conclusion – Based on the comparative criteria, drug information in Lexicomp for the five medications was found to be more comprehensive than Wikipedia. Adverse effects listed in Lexicomp did not always have corresponding support in the published peer-reviewed literature.

show abstract

Completeness, accuracy, and readability of Wikipedia as a reference for patient medication information

Cited by 22 publications

References 4 publications

Evaluation of the reading level of commonly used medication‐related patient education sources

Evaluation of the reading level of commonly used medication‐related patient education sources

Readability of Wikipedia Pages on Autoimmune Disorders: Systematic Quantitative Assessment

Lexicomp Provides More Comprehensive Drug Information than Wikipedia in Small Sample Comparison

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About