Article type
Year
Abstract
Background:
Wikipedia and other commonly used sources of online medical information, e.g. UpToDate, have become central pillars of medical education for patients and providers – it is estimated that Wikipedia medical articles are viewed over 180 million times per month; UpToDate receives a further 18 million monthly topic views. While UpToDate uses a ‘rigorous editorial process to synthesise the most recent medical information,’ less than 1% of Wikipedia articles have passed through a formal peer-review process.
Objectives:
To determine use of the Cochrane Prostatic Diseases and Urologic Cancer Group’s bladder cancer reviews on Wikipedia; and to compare use of these reviews in ‘UpToDate’ articles.
Methods: Relevant Wikipedia and UpToDate articles were reviewed to assess use/non-use (determined by citation) of the eight Cochrane Reviews in the area of bladder cancer management (published 2000-2012), and to determine the impact of non-use.
Results:
None of the eight Cochrane Reviews were cited on relevant Wikipedia page(s). Relevant UpToDate articles however cited three of the Cochrane Reviews, and ‘Other published versions’ (published in the Lancet and Eur Urol) of two further Cochrane Reviews were cited. Where no Cochrane Review was cited, UpToDate was more likely than Wikipedia to reference an alternative review/meta-analysis, or individual trials (including randomised trials conducted/published post-publication of the relevant Cochrane Review). In most cases, the absence of reference to the relevant Cochrane Review led to missing/incomplete information, rather than inaccurate recommendations/conclusions.
Conclusions:
Evidence from bladder cancer management Cochrane Reviews is under-utilised on Wikipedia, leading to the transfer of incomplete healthcare information; as anticipated, use on UpToDate is more encouraging. The Cochrane Collaboration’s announcement in February 2014 of a partnership with Wikiproject Medicine represents an important step towards providing patients and providers with accurate and clinically relevant online medical information; ensuring that Cochrane Reviews are ‘up-to-date’ will assist in this ongoing challenge.
Wikipedia and other commonly used sources of online medical information, e.g. UpToDate, have become central pillars of medical education for patients and providers – it is estimated that Wikipedia medical articles are viewed over 180 million times per month; UpToDate receives a further 18 million monthly topic views. While UpToDate uses a ‘rigorous editorial process to synthesise the most recent medical information,’ less than 1% of Wikipedia articles have passed through a formal peer-review process.
Objectives:
To determine use of the Cochrane Prostatic Diseases and Urologic Cancer Group’s bladder cancer reviews on Wikipedia; and to compare use of these reviews in ‘UpToDate’ articles.
Methods: Relevant Wikipedia and UpToDate articles were reviewed to assess use/non-use (determined by citation) of the eight Cochrane Reviews in the area of bladder cancer management (published 2000-2012), and to determine the impact of non-use.
Results:
None of the eight Cochrane Reviews were cited on relevant Wikipedia page(s). Relevant UpToDate articles however cited three of the Cochrane Reviews, and ‘Other published versions’ (published in the Lancet and Eur Urol) of two further Cochrane Reviews were cited. Where no Cochrane Review was cited, UpToDate was more likely than Wikipedia to reference an alternative review/meta-analysis, or individual trials (including randomised trials conducted/published post-publication of the relevant Cochrane Review). In most cases, the absence of reference to the relevant Cochrane Review led to missing/incomplete information, rather than inaccurate recommendations/conclusions.
Conclusions:
Evidence from bladder cancer management Cochrane Reviews is under-utilised on Wikipedia, leading to the transfer of incomplete healthcare information; as anticipated, use on UpToDate is more encouraging. The Cochrane Collaboration’s announcement in February 2014 of a partnership with Wikiproject Medicine represents an important step towards providing patients and providers with accurate and clinically relevant online medical information; ensuring that Cochrane Reviews are ‘up-to-date’ will assist in this ongoing challenge.