Daniel A London1, Steven M Andelman2, Anthony V Christiano2, Joung Heon Kim2, Michael R Hausman2, Jaehon M Kim2. 1. Leni and Peter W. May Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, 5 E. 98th St, Box 1198, New York, NY, 10029, USA. daniel.london@mountsinai.org. 2. Leni and Peter W. May Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, 5 E. 98th St, Box 1198, New York, NY, 10029, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Wikipedia is a popular online encyclopedia generating over 5.4 billion visits per month, and it is also a common resource for the general public and professionals for medical information. The goal of this study is to determine the accuracy and completeness of Wikipedia as a resource for musculoskeletal anatomy. METHODS: The origin, insertion, innervation, and function of all muscles of the upper and lower extremities as detailed on Wikipedia was compared to the available corresponding information in Grant's Atlas of Anatomy (14th edition). Entries were scored for both accuracy and completeness. Descriptive statistics were calculated and associations between and within entries for accuracy and completeness were assessed by McNemar's tests. Information on Wikipedia's references was also collected. RESULTS: Overall, data on Wikipedia was 97.6% complete and 98.8% accurate when compared to Grant's Atlas of Anatomy. 78.6% of all entries were fully complete and accurate, with 15.3% of entries containing one error and 6.1% containing two errors. There were no associations between or within entries' accuracy and completeness. Only 62% of references from Wikipedia included were from academic sources. CONCLUSIONS: Musculoskeletal anatomy entries on Wikipedia are imperfect; they have inaccurate and missing information. Furthermore, a considerable proportion of references cited in entries are from poorly identified sources. While Wikipedia is an easily accessible resource for a large number of people and much of the anatomic information is appropriate, it cannot be considered to be an equivalent resource when compared to anatomic texts.
PURPOSE: Wikipedia is a popular online encyclopedia generating over 5.4 billion visits per month, and it is also a common resource for the general public and professionals for medical information. The goal of this study is to determine the accuracy and completeness of Wikipedia as a resource for musculoskeletal anatomy. METHODS: The origin, insertion, innervation, and function of all muscles of the upper and lower extremities as detailed on Wikipedia was compared to the available corresponding information in Grant's Atlas of Anatomy (14th edition). Entries were scored for both accuracy and completeness. Descriptive statistics were calculated and associations between and within entries for accuracy and completeness were assessed by McNemar's tests. Information on Wikipedia's references was also collected. RESULTS: Overall, data on Wikipedia was 97.6% complete and 98.8% accurate when compared to Grant's Atlas of Anatomy. 78.6% of all entries were fully complete and accurate, with 15.3% of entries containing one error and 6.1% containing two errors. There were no associations between or within entries' accuracy and completeness. Only 62% of references from Wikipedia included were from academic sources. CONCLUSIONS: Musculoskeletal anatomy entries on Wikipedia are imperfect; they have inaccurate and missing information. Furthermore, a considerable proportion of references cited in entries are from poorly identified sources. While Wikipedia is an easily accessible resource for a large number of people and much of the anatomic information is appropriate, it cannot be considered to be an equivalent resource when compared to anatomic texts.
Entities:
Keywords:
Anatomy; Grant’s anatomy; Internet resources; Medical education; Musculoskeletal anatomy; Online learning; Wikipedia
Authors: N J Reavley; A J Mackinnon; A J Morgan; M Alvarez-Jimenez; S E Hetrick; E Killackey; B Nelson; R Purcell; M B H Yap; A F Jorm Journal: Psychol Med Date: 2011-12-14 Impact factor: 7.723
Authors: Jona Kräenbring; Tika Monzon Penza; Joanna Gutmann; Susanne Muehlich; Oliver Zolk; Leszek Wojnowski; Renke Maas; Stefan Engelhardt; Antonio Sarikas Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-09-24 Impact factor: 3.240