Scope, completeness, and accuracy of drug information in Wikipedia
|Scope, completeness, and accuracy of drug information in Wikipedia|
|Author(s)||Kevin A. Clauson, Hyla H. Polen, Maged Kamel N. Boulos, Joan H. Dzenowagis|
|Published in||The Annals of pharmacotherapy|
|Article||BASE, CiteSeerX, Google Scholar|
|Web||Ask, Bing, Google (PDF), Yahoo!|
|Download and mirrors|
|Local copy||Not available|
|Export and share|
|BibTeX, CSV, RDF, JSON|
|Browse properties · List of publications|
Scope, completeness, and accuracy of drug information in Wikipedia is a 2008 publication written in English by Kevin A. Clauson, Hyla H. Polen, Maged Kamel N. Boulos, Joan H. Dzenowagis and published in The Annals of pharmacotherapy.
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.
- This section requires expansion. Please, help!
Cited byThis publication has 7 citations. Only those publications available in WikiPapers are shown here:
- Accuracy and completeness of drug information in Wikipedia: an assessment
- Assessing the accuracy and quality of Wikipedia entries compared to popular online encyclopaedias
- Putting Wikipedia to the Test: A Case Study
- Seeking health information online: does Wikipedia matter?
- What We Know About Wikipedia: A Review of the Literature Analyzing the Project(s)
- Wikipedia as a Data Source for Political Scientists: Accuracy and Completeness of Coverage
- Wikipedia research and tools: Review and comments