my personal edition > surgery > news


  E-Mail this DGDispatch to a colleague

DGDispatch

Wikipedia Information on Surgical Procedures Generally Accurate: Presented at ACS

By John Gever

NEW ORLEANS, LA -- October 11, 2007 -- Wikipedia, the most popular Internet information source, is quite accurate when it comes to surgical information, albeit with some gaps, according to research reported here at the 93rd Annual Clinical Congress of the American College of Surgeons (ACS).

Surgeons and other physicians have become concerned in recent years that patients are obtaining medical information from unreliable Internet sources. This concern led Lara Devgan, MD, MPH, Plastic Surgery Resident, New York Presbyterian Hospital/Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York, United States, to evaluate the accuracy of Wikipedia entries on surgical procedures.

Dr. Devgan conducted her analysis with colleagues at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, United States, when she was a medical student there.

The study began by identifying the 39 most commonly performed inpatient and outpatient surgical procedures (according to National Center for Health Statistics data). Dr. Devgan's group then searched Wikipedia for corresponding articles, finding 35. Three independent physician reviewers then rated each article for qualitative rigor and accuracy, as indicated by what the reviewers considered appropriate discussions of indications for and risks of the procedure in question and the presence of overt errors. The reviewers also judged whether the article overall was suitable for recommending to patients.

Every one of the 35 articles was judged to be entirely free of overt errors, Dr. Devgan stated here October 9 in an oral presentation. Of these 35 articles, 30 could be recommended to patients, according to the consensus of the reviewers, and 22 were recommended without reservations. Indications for the procedures were adequately addressed in 34 of the 35 entries.

Wikipedia's major failing, according to the study, was in discussions of potential adverse effects, Dr. Devgan noted. Thirteen of the evaluated articles (37%) failed to address risks known to be associated with the surgeries.

This study indicated that the overall quality of articles was correlated with the number of edits, the number of unique editors, the number of references, the number of external links, and the presence of at least one peer-reviewed journal as a reference. Dr. Devgan concluded that these aspects of Wikipedia, in which entries are continually and transparently expanded and revised, may lead to quality improvements and increased utility for patient information.

Wikipedia content is written, edited and annotated entirely by volunteer users, numbering in the tens of thousands. Original submissions and all subsequent edits are visible to users, creating total transparency -- in contrast to other, ostensibly more authoritative information sources -- and the systems contains mechanisms to prevent and remediate vandalism, self-promotion and other abuses.

A 2005 study published in the journal Nature found that Wikipedia science articles were nearly as accurate as corresponding entries in the Encylopedia Brittanica.


[Presentation title: Wiki-Surgery? Internal Validity of Wikipedia as a Medical and Surgical Reference.]

E-Mail this DGDispatch to a colleague

To print, use this version