Wikipedia in Vascular Surgery Medical Education: Comparative Study

Abstract

Background Medical students commonly refer to Wikipedia as their preferred online resource for medical information. The quality and readability of articles about common vascular disorders on Wikipedia has not been evaluated or compared against a standard textbook of surgery. Objective The aims of this study were to (1) compare the quality of Wikipedia articles to that of equivalent chapters in a standard undergraduate medical textbook of surgery, (2) identify any errors of omission in either resource, and (3) compare the readability of both resources using validated ease-of-reading and grade-level tools. Methods Using the Medical Council of Canada Objectives for the Qualifying Examination, 8 fundamental topics of vascular surgery were chosen. The articles were found on Wikipedia using Wikipedia’s native search engine. The equivalent chapters were identified in Schwartz Principles of Surgery (ninth edition). Medical learners (n=2) assessed each of the texts on their original platforms to independently evaluate readability, quality, and errors of omission. Readability was evaluated with Flesch Reading Ease scores and 5 grade-level scores (Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, Gunning Fog Index, Coleman-Liau Index, Simple Measure of Gobbledygook Index, and Automated Readability Index), quality was evaluated using the DISCERN instrument, and errors of omission were evaluated using a standardized scoring system that was designed by the authors. Results Flesch Reading Ease scores suggested that Wikipedia (mean 30.5; SD 8.4) was significantly easier to read (P=.03) than Schwartz (mean 20.2; SD 9.0). The mean grade level (calculated using all grade-level indices) of the Wikipedia articles (mean 14.2; SD 1.3) was significantly different (P=.02) than the mean grade level of Schwartz (mean 15.9; SD 1.4). The quality of the text was also assessed using the DISCERN instrument and suggested that Schwartz (mean 71.4; SD 3.1) had a significantly higher quality (P=.002) compared to that of Wikipedia (mean 52.9; SD 11.4). Finally, the Wikipedia error of omission rate (mean 12.5; SD 6.8) was higher than that of Schwartz (mean 21.3; SD 1.9) indicating that there were significantly fewer errors of omission in the surgical textbook (P=.008). Conclusions Online resources are increasingly easier to access but can vary in quality. Based on this comparison, the authors of this study recommend the use of vascular surgery textbooks as a primary source of learning material because the information within is more consistent in quality and has fewer errors of omission. Wikipedia can be a useful resource for quick reference, particularly because of its ease of reading, but its vascular surgery articles require further development.

Evaluation of Medical Information on Male Sexual Dysfunction on Baidu Encyclopedia and Wikipedia: Comparative Study

“…By June 2021, the number of online medical users in China was 239.33 million, and the utilization rate of the internet was 23.7%, an increase of 11.4% over December 2020 [ 29 ]. In an analysis of internet search trends in China, some scholars found that only 43.74% of the search results for PE were related to PE [ 16 ].…”

Google Images Search Results as a Resource in the Anatomy Laboratory: Rating of Educational Value

“…Wikipedia is a popular resource among medical students [ 9 , 10 , 25 ], but its reliability is debated [ 26 ]. Arguments against Wikipedia as a resource cite poor quality of images [ 16 ] and insufficient detail [ 15 , 16 , 27 ]. London et al [ 14 ] found that Wikipedia was generally accurate and complete for basic anatomical information, despite asserting that textbooks should still be considered the gold standard.…”

Assessment of the digestive system malignancy information in Wikipedia and Baidu Encyclopedia: a longitudinal study

“…The DISCERN instrument, which is a tool for judging the quality of health information on treatment choices, was used to assess the quality of the articles retrieved from Wikipedia and Baidu Encyclopedia ( 21 ); however, its actual function is a matter of debate. Some scholars have argued that the original version of the DISCERN instrument is not suitable for evaluating Wikipedia articles ( 22 , 23 ); however, a great deal of recent research has still used the DISCERN instrument to evaluate the quality of online Wikipedia articles ( 15 , 16 ). Thus, in the absence of a better tool, the DISCERN instrument was considered an appropriate tool for evaluating the quality of the Wikipedia online articles.…”

“…The higher DISCERN score, the better the quality of the article. Overall, a total DISCERN score can range from 16 to 80, and based on the total score, the articles are categorized as very poor (a score of [16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26], poor (a score of 27-38), fair (a score of 39-50), good (a score of 51-62), and excellent (a score of 63-80) (15,16).…”

“…Baidu Encyclopedia, China's version of Wikipedia (13), publishes more than 16 million articles in Chinese. Wikipedia and Baidu Encyclopedia are the most wildly used English and Chinese search engine websites, respectively (14)(15)(16); however, the quality of the medical information contained on these websites has not yet been examined.…”