-
Health
Open follow modal
Personalized Content
Health
Follow this section to personalize your feed and get instant alerts.
FollowGo to your personalized feed
WHY FOLLOW?
- Custom Feed: See the stories that matter most to you.
- Smart Alerts: Get notified about major news as it happens.
Update your preferences in Account Settings
Close
-
Research
Open follow modal
Personalized Content
Research
Follow this tag to personalize your feed and get instant alerts.
FollowGo to your personalized feed
WHY FOLLOW?
- Custom Feed: See the stories that matter most to you.
- Smart Alerts: Get notified about major news as it happens.
Update your preferences in Account Settings
Close
Don't Trust Wikipedia When It Comes to Your Health, Study Says
by
Dan Kedmey
Open follow modal
Personalized Content
Dan Kedmey
Follow this author to personalize your feed and get instant alerts.
FollowGo to your personalized feed
WHY FOLLOW?
- Custom Feed: See the stories that matter most to you.
- Smart Alerts: Get notified about major news as it happens.
Update your preferences in Account Settings
Close
May 27, 2014 3:43 PM CUT
by
Dan Kedmey
Open follow modal
Personalized Content
Dan Kedmey
Follow this author to personalize your feed and get instant alerts.
FollowGo to your personalized feed
WHY FOLLOW?
- Custom Feed: See the stories that matter most to you.
- Smart Alerts: Get notified about major news as it happens.
Update your preferences in Account Settings
Close
May 27, 2014 3:43 PM CUT
A new study has found that Wikipedia entries on the costliest medical conditions contradicted the latest medical research 90% of the time.
A team of U.S. scientists said they found “many errors” in Wikipedia articles concerning the 10 costliest medical conditions. The researchers cross-checked Wikipedia entries on coronary disease, lung cancer, hypertension and back pain, among other ailments, against the latest research from peer-reviewed journals.
Nine out of 10 entries analyzed on the crowd-sourced encyclopedia contained assertions that were contradicted by the peer-reviewed sources. Only the entry on concussions escaped the review error free. The authors noted that the article appeared to have contributors with a greater degree of expertise, mimicking the peer-reviewed process.
“Health care professionals, trainees, and patients should use caution when using Wikipedia to answer questions regarding patient care,” wrote the study’s authors in the Journal of the American Osteopathic Association.
The authors laid particular stress on medical professionals; a recent study found that 50 percent of physicians admitted using Wikipedia as a reference source.