Patient-oriented cancer information on the internet: a comparison of wikipedia and a professionally maintained database - PubMed (original) (raw)

Patient-oriented cancer information on the internet: a comparison of wikipedia and a professionally maintained database

Malolan S Rajagopalan et al. J Oncol Pract. 2011 Sep.

Abstract

Purpose: A wiki is a collaborative Web site, such as Wikipedia, that can be freely edited. Because of a wiki's lack of formal editorial control, we hypothesized that the content would be less complete and accurate than that of a professional peer-reviewed Web site. In this study, the coverage, accuracy, and readability of cancer information on Wikipedia were compared with those of the patient-orientated National Cancer Institute's Physician Data Query (PDQ) comprehensive cancer database.

Methods: For each of 10 cancer types, medically trained personnel scored PDQ and Wikipedia articles for accuracy and presentation of controversies by using an appraisal form. Reliability was assessed by using interobserver variability and test-retest reproducibility. Readability was calculated from word and sentence length.

Results: Evaluators were able to rapidly assess articles (18 minutes/article), with a test-retest reliability of 0.71 and interobserver variability of 0.53. For both Web sites, inaccuracies were rare, less than 2% of information examined. PDQ was significantly more readable than Wikipedia: Flesch-Kincaid grade level 9.6 versus 14.1. There was no difference in depth of coverage between PDQ and Wikipedia (29.9, 34.2, respectively; maximum possible score 72). Controversial aspects of cancer care were relatively poorly discussed in both resources (2.9 and 6.1 for PDQ and Wikipedia, respectively, NS; maximum possible score 18). A planned subanalysis comparing common and uncommon cancers demonstrated no difference.

Conclusion: Although the wiki resource had similar accuracy and depth as the professionally edited database, it was significantly less readable. Further research is required to assess how this influences patients' understanding and retention.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Depth and accuracy of content. Information statements obtained from professional oncology texts were compared against content from both electronic resources and scored. max., maximum; PDQ, Physician Data Query.

Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Coverage of controversial topics. Topics of controversy or debate were generated for each cancer site as described in the Methods section and were compared between the electronic resources. max., maximum; PDQ, Physician Data Query.

Figure 3.

Figure 3.

Readability. Readability was assessed by using the Flesch-Kincaid grade level, factoring word length and sentence structure. PDQ, Physician Data Query.

Figure A1.

Figure A1.

References in Wikipedia articles. References were compared for Wikipedia articles about (A) common cancers and (B) uncommon cancers.

Figure A2.

Figure A2.

Frequency of revisions to Wikipedia articles. The number of revisions to Wikipedia articles over the course of 1 year was compared for articles about common cancers and uncommon cancers.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Castleton K, Fong T, Wang-Gillam A, et al. A survey of Internet utilization among patients with cancer. Support Care Cancer. 2010;18:18. - PubMed
    1. Schwartz KL, Roe T, Northrup J, et al. Family medicine patients' use of the Internet for health information: A MetroNet study. J Am Board Fam Med. 2006;19:39–45. - PubMed
    1. Diaz JA, Griffith RA, Ng JJ, et al. Patients' use of the Internet for medical information. J Gen Intern Med. 2002;17:180–185. - PMC - PubMed
    1. McMullan M. Patients using the Internet to obtain health information: How this affects the patient-health professional relationship. Patient Educ Couns. 2006;63:24–28. - PubMed
    1. Giustini D. How Web 2.0 is changing medicine. BMJ. 2006;333:1283–1284. - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources