VAIDS

Tuesday, May 27, 2014

Trust your doctor, not Wikipedia, say scientists

Scientists in the US compared entries about conditions such as heart disease, lung cancer, depression and diabetes with peer-reviewed medical research.

They said most articles in Wikipedia contained "many errors".
DoctorWikimedia UK, its British arm, said it was "crucial" that people with health concerns spoke to their GP first.
Open-access 'concerns'
The online encyclopaedia is a charity, and has 30 million articles in 285 languages.
It can be edited by anybody, but many volunteers from the medical profession check the pages for inaccuracies, said Wikimedia UK.
The open-access nature has "raised concern" among doctors about its reliability, as it is the sixth most popular site on the internet, the US authors of the research, published in the Journal of the American Osteopathic Association, said. 

Up to 70% of physicians and medical students use the tool, they say.
The 10 researchers across America looked at online articles for 10 of the "most costly" conditions in the US, including osteoarthritis, back problems and asthma. 

They printed off the articles on 25 April 2012 to analyse, and discovered that 90% of the entries made statements that contradicted latest medical research.

Wikipedia, like any encyclopaedia, should not take the place of a qualified medical practitioner”

Stevie Benton Wikimedia UK
Lead author Dr Robert Hasty, of the Wallace School of Osteopathic Medicine in North Carolina, said: "While Wikipedia is a convenient tool for conducting research, from a public health standpoint patients should not use it as a primary resource because those articles do not go through the same peer-review process as medical journals."
Dr Hasty added the "best resource" for people worried about their health was their doctor.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Share

Enter your Email Below To Get Quality Updates Directly Into Your Inbox FREE !!<|p>

Widget By

VAIDS

FORD FIGO