Revision as of 01:39, November 5, 2014 by AnankeBot (Autocreate page for wanted author with incoming links)
| Martin Makary|
(Alternative names for this author)
|Co-authors||B Blakey, Brittony Blakey, L Devgan, Lara Devgan, M Makary, N Powe, Neil Powe|
|Authorship||Publications (1), datasets (0), tools (0)|
|Citations||Total (4), average (4), median (4), max (4), min (4)|
|DBLP · Google Scholar|
|Export and share|
|BibTeX, CSV, RDF, JSON|
|Browse properties · List of authors|
Martin Makary is an author.
PublicationsOnly those publications related to wikis are shown here.
|Title||Keyword(s)||Published in||Language||DateThis property is a special property in this wiki.||Abstract||R||C|
|Wiki-Surgery? Internal validity of Wikipedia as a medical and surgical reference||Journal of the American College of Surgeons
Journal of the American College of Surgeons, , Issue 3, Supplement 1, September 2007, Pages S76-S77
|With the burgeoning popularity of the internet, patients are increasingly using web-based search engines to learn about their medical and surgical problems. Wikipedia® is the world’s 12th most popular website and the most widely read of such sources. Despite Wikipedia®’s popularity, little is known about the accuracy of its health-related content. We identified Wikipedia® entries for the most commonly performed inpatient procedures in the U.S., as defined by the National Center for Health Statistics. Each article was evaluated by two independent reviewers to determine quantitative metrics of quality (number of edits, unique editors, and references) and evidence of qualitative rigor (accuracy, completeness, discussion of indications and risks, and suitability for patients). Statistical analysis was performed using STATA 9.0. Thirty-nine procedures were identified, of which 89.7% (n=35) were indexed on Wikipedia®. The vast majority of Wikipedia® articles (85.7%, n=30) were deemed appropriate for patients. Overall, 100% (n=35) presented accurate content, although only 62.9% (n=22) were free of critical omissions. Most entries addressed procedure indications (97.1%, n=34), while significantly fewer discussed risks (62.9%, n=22). Interestingly, there was a correlation between an entry’s quality and how often it was edited. Wikipedia® is an accurate though often incomplete medical reference, with a remarkably high level of internal validity. Given the correlation between the quality of a Wikipedia® entry and its editorial frequency, the participation of medical and surgical professionals in authoring Wikipedia® entries may improve their quality and keep patients more informed.||0||4|