 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||||
RESEARCH REPORTS |
1 Associate Professor, Pharmacy Practice, College of Pharmacy-West Palm Beach, Nova Southeastern University, Palm Beach Gardens, FL
2 Clinical Affiliate Assistant Professor, College of Pharmacy-West Palm Beach, Nova Southeastern University
3 Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Health and Social Work, University of Plymouth, Devon, UK
4 Scientist e-Health, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland
* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: clauson{at}nova.edu.
 |
Abstract |
|---|
BACKGROUND: With the advent of Web 2.0 technologies, user-edited online resources such as Wikipedia are increasingly tapped for information. However, there is little research on the quality of health information found in Wikipedia.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the scope, completeness, and accuracy of drug information in Wikipedia with that of a free, online, traditionally edited database (Medscape Drug Reference [MDR]).
METHODS: Wikipedia and MDR were assessed on 8 categories of drug information. Questions were constructed and answers were verified with authoritative resources. Wikipedia and MDR were evaluated according to scope (breadth of coverage) and completeness. Accuracy was tracked by factual errors and errors of omission. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the components. Fisher's exact test was used to compare scope and paired Student's t-test was used to compare current results in Wikipedia with entries 90 days prior to the current access.
RESULTS: Wikipedia was able to answer significantly fewer drug information questions (40.0%) compared with MDR (82.5%; p < 0.001). Wikipedia performed poorly regarding information on dosing, with a score of 0% versus the MDR score of 90.0%. Answers found in Wikipedia were 76.0% complete, while MDR provided answers that were 95.5% complete; overall, Wikipedia answers were less complete than those in Medscape (p < 0.001). No factual errors were found in Wikipedia, whereas 4 answers in Medscape conflicted with the answer key; errors of omission were higher in Wikipedia (n = 48) than in MDR (n = 14). There was a marked improvement in Wikipedia over time, as current entries were superior to those 90 days prior (p = 0.024).
CONCLUSIONS: Wikipedia has a more narrow scope, is less complete, and has more errors of omission than the comparator database. Wikipedia may be a useful point of engagement for consumers, but is not authoritative and should only be a supplemental source of drug information.
Key Words: drug information, eHealth, Wikipedia.
Reprints:Dr. Clauson, College of Pharmacy-West Palm Beach, Nova Southeastern University, 3970 RCA Blvd., Suite 7006A, Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410, fax 561/627-0972, clauson@nova.edu
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  W. E. Schreiber and D. M. Giustini Pathology in the Era of Web 2.0 Am J Clin Pathol, December 1, 2009; 132(6): 824 - 828. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 L. Brokowski and A. H. Sheehan Evaluation of Pharmacist Use and Perception of Wikipedia as a Drug Information Resource Ann. Pharmacother., November 1, 2009; 43(11): 1912 - 1913. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. Laurent and T. J Vickers Seeking Health Information Online: Does Wikipedia Matter? JAMIA, July 1, 2009; 16(4): 471 - 479. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
