Eintrag weiter verarbeiten
Is Wikipedia a reliable learning resource for medical students? Evaluating respiratory topics
Gespeichert in:
| Zeitschriftentitel: | Advances in Physiology Education |
|---|---|
| Personen und Körperschaften: | |
| In: | Advances in Physiology Education, 39, 2015, 1, S. 5-14 |
| Format: | E-Article |
| Sprache: | Englisch |
| veröffentlicht: |
American Physiological Society
|
| Schlagwörter: |
| author_facet |
Azer, Samy A. Azer, Samy A. |
|---|---|
| author |
Azer, Samy A. |
| spellingShingle |
Azer, Samy A. Advances in Physiology Education Is Wikipedia a reliable learning resource for medical students? Evaluating respiratory topics General Medicine Physiology Education |
| author_sort |
azer, samy a. |
| spelling |
Azer, Samy A. 1043-4046 1522-1229 American Physiological Society General Medicine Physiology Education http://dx.doi.org/10.1152/advan.00110.2014 <jats:p>The aim of the present study was to critically evaluate the accuracy and readability of English Wikipedia articles on the respiratory system and its disorders and whether they can be a suitable resource for medical students. On April 27, 2014, English Wikipedia was searched for articles on respiratory topics. Using a modified DISCERN instrument, articles were independently scored by three assessors. The scoring targeted content accuracy, frequency of updating, and quality of references. The readability of articles was measured using two other instruments. The mean DISCERN score for the 40 articles identified was 26.4 ± 6.3. Most articles covered causes, signs and symptoms, prevention, and treatment. However, several knowledge deficiencies in the pathogenesis of diseases, investigations needed, and treatment were observed. The total number of references for the 40 articles was 1,654, and the references varied from 0 to 168 references, but several problems were identified in the list of references and citations made. The readability of articles was in the range of 9.4 ± 1.8 to 22.6 ± 10.7 using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level instrument and 10.0 ± 2.6 to 19.6 ± 8.3 using the Readability Coleman-Liau index. A strong correlation was found between the two instruments ( r<jats:sup>2</jats:sup>= 0.744, P < 0.001). The agreement between the assessors had mean κ scores in the range of 0.712–0.857. In conclusion, despite the effort placed in creating Wikipedia respiratory articles by anonymous volunteers (wikipedians), most articles had knowledge deficiencies, were not accurate, and were not suitable for medical students as learning resources.</jats:p> Is Wikipedia a reliable learning resource for medical students? Evaluating respiratory topics Advances in Physiology Education |
| doi_str_mv |
10.1152/advan.00110.2014 |
| facet_avail |
Online Free |
| finc_class_facet |
Biologie Pädagogik |
| format |
ElectronicArticle |
| fullrecord |
blob:ai-49-aHR0cDovL2R4LmRvaS5vcmcvMTAuMTE1Mi9hZHZhbi4wMDExMC4yMDE0 |
| id |
ai-49-aHR0cDovL2R4LmRvaS5vcmcvMTAuMTE1Mi9hZHZhbi4wMDExMC4yMDE0 |
| institution |
DE-Bn3 DE-Brt1 DE-Zwi2 DE-D161 DE-Gla1 DE-Zi4 DE-15 DE-Pl11 DE-Rs1 DE-105 DE-14 DE-Ch1 DE-L229 DE-D275 |
| imprint |
American Physiological Society, 2015 |
| imprint_str_mv |
American Physiological Society, 2015 |
| issn |
1043-4046 1522-1229 |
| issn_str_mv |
1043-4046 1522-1229 |
| language |
English |
| mega_collection |
American Physiological Society (CrossRef) |
| match_str |
azer2015iswikipediaareliablelearningresourceformedicalstudentsevaluatingrespiratorytopics |
| publishDateSort |
2015 |
| publisher |
American Physiological Society |
| recordtype |
ai |
| record_format |
ai |
| series |
Advances in Physiology Education |
| source_id |
49 |
| title |
Is Wikipedia a reliable learning resource for medical students? Evaluating respiratory topics |
| title_unstemmed |
Is Wikipedia a reliable learning resource for medical students? Evaluating respiratory topics |
| title_full |
Is Wikipedia a reliable learning resource for medical students? Evaluating respiratory topics |
| title_fullStr |
Is Wikipedia a reliable learning resource for medical students? Evaluating respiratory topics |
| title_full_unstemmed |
Is Wikipedia a reliable learning resource for medical students? Evaluating respiratory topics |
| title_short |
Is Wikipedia a reliable learning resource for medical students? Evaluating respiratory topics |
| title_sort |
is wikipedia a reliable learning resource for medical students? evaluating respiratory topics |
| topic |
General Medicine Physiology Education |
| url |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1152/advan.00110.2014 |
| publishDate |
2015 |
| physical |
5-14 |
| description |
<jats:p>The aim of the present study was to critically evaluate the accuracy and readability of English Wikipedia articles on the respiratory system and its disorders and whether they can be a suitable resource for medical students. On April 27, 2014, English Wikipedia was searched for articles on respiratory topics. Using a modified DISCERN instrument, articles were independently scored by three assessors. The scoring targeted content accuracy, frequency of updating, and quality of references. The readability of articles was measured using two other instruments. The mean DISCERN score for the 40 articles identified was 26.4 ± 6.3. Most articles covered causes, signs and symptoms, prevention, and treatment. However, several knowledge deficiencies in the pathogenesis of diseases, investigations needed, and treatment were observed. The total number of references for the 40 articles was 1,654, and the references varied from 0 to 168 references, but several problems were identified in the list of references and citations made. The readability of articles was in the range of 9.4 ± 1.8 to 22.6 ± 10.7 using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level instrument and 10.0 ± 2.6 to 19.6 ± 8.3 using the Readability Coleman-Liau index. A strong correlation was found between the two instruments ( r<jats:sup>2</jats:sup>= 0.744, P < 0.001). The agreement between the assessors had mean κ scores in the range of 0.712–0.857. In conclusion, despite the effort placed in creating Wikipedia respiratory articles by anonymous volunteers (wikipedians), most articles had knowledge deficiencies, were not accurate, and were not suitable for medical students as learning resources.</jats:p> |
| container_issue |
1 |
| container_start_page |
5 |
| container_title |
Advances in Physiology Education |
| container_volume |
39 |
| format_de105 |
Article, E-Article |
| format_de14 |
Article, E-Article |
| format_de15 |
Article, E-Article |
| format_de520 |
Article, E-Article |
| format_de540 |
Article, E-Article |
| format_dech1 |
Article, E-Article |
| format_ded117 |
Article, E-Article |
| format_degla1 |
E-Article |
| format_del152 |
Buch |
| format_del189 |
Article, E-Article |
| format_dezi4 |
Article |
| format_dezwi2 |
Article, E-Article |
| format_finc |
Article, E-Article |
| format_nrw |
Article, E-Article |
| _version_ |
1792347443232243715 |
| geogr_code |
not assigned |
| last_indexed |
2024-03-01T17:55:22.562Z |
| geogr_code_person |
not assigned |
| openURL |
url_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fvufind.svn.sourceforge.net%3Agenerator&rft.title=Is+Wikipedia+a+reliable+learning+resource+for+medical+students%3F+Evaluating+respiratory+topics&rft.date=2015-03-01&genre=article&issn=1522-1229&volume=39&issue=1&spage=5&epage=14&pages=5-14&jtitle=Advances+in+Physiology+Education&atitle=Is+Wikipedia+a+reliable+learning+resource+for+medical+students%3F+Evaluating+respiratory+topics&aulast=Azer&aufirst=Samy+A.&rft_id=info%3Adoi%2F10.1152%2Fadvan.00110.2014&rft.language%5B0%5D=eng |
| SOLR | |
| _version_ | 1792347443232243715 |
| author | Azer, Samy A. |
| author_facet | Azer, Samy A., Azer, Samy A. |
| author_sort | azer, samy a. |
| container_issue | 1 |
| container_start_page | 5 |
| container_title | Advances in Physiology Education |
| container_volume | 39 |
| description | <jats:p>The aim of the present study was to critically evaluate the accuracy and readability of English Wikipedia articles on the respiratory system and its disorders and whether they can be a suitable resource for medical students. On April 27, 2014, English Wikipedia was searched for articles on respiratory topics. Using a modified DISCERN instrument, articles were independently scored by three assessors. The scoring targeted content accuracy, frequency of updating, and quality of references. The readability of articles was measured using two other instruments. The mean DISCERN score for the 40 articles identified was 26.4 ± 6.3. Most articles covered causes, signs and symptoms, prevention, and treatment. However, several knowledge deficiencies in the pathogenesis of diseases, investigations needed, and treatment were observed. The total number of references for the 40 articles was 1,654, and the references varied from 0 to 168 references, but several problems were identified in the list of references and citations made. The readability of articles was in the range of 9.4 ± 1.8 to 22.6 ± 10.7 using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level instrument and 10.0 ± 2.6 to 19.6 ± 8.3 using the Readability Coleman-Liau index. A strong correlation was found between the two instruments ( r<jats:sup>2</jats:sup>= 0.744, P < 0.001). The agreement between the assessors had mean κ scores in the range of 0.712–0.857. In conclusion, despite the effort placed in creating Wikipedia respiratory articles by anonymous volunteers (wikipedians), most articles had knowledge deficiencies, were not accurate, and were not suitable for medical students as learning resources.</jats:p> |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1152/advan.00110.2014 |
| facet_avail | Online, Free |
| finc_class_facet | Biologie, Pädagogik |
| format | ElectronicArticle |
| format_de105 | Article, E-Article |
| format_de14 | Article, E-Article |
| format_de15 | Article, E-Article |
| format_de520 | Article, E-Article |
| format_de540 | Article, E-Article |
| format_dech1 | Article, E-Article |
| format_ded117 | Article, E-Article |
| format_degla1 | E-Article |
| format_del152 | Buch |
| format_del189 | Article, E-Article |
| format_dezi4 | Article |
| format_dezwi2 | Article, E-Article |
| format_finc | Article, E-Article |
| format_nrw | Article, E-Article |
| geogr_code | not assigned |
| geogr_code_person | not assigned |
| id | ai-49-aHR0cDovL2R4LmRvaS5vcmcvMTAuMTE1Mi9hZHZhbi4wMDExMC4yMDE0 |
| imprint | American Physiological Society, 2015 |
| imprint_str_mv | American Physiological Society, 2015 |
| institution | DE-Bn3, DE-Brt1, DE-Zwi2, DE-D161, DE-Gla1, DE-Zi4, DE-15, DE-Pl11, DE-Rs1, DE-105, DE-14, DE-Ch1, DE-L229, DE-D275 |
| issn | 1043-4046, 1522-1229 |
| issn_str_mv | 1043-4046, 1522-1229 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-01T17:55:22.562Z |
| match_str | azer2015iswikipediaareliablelearningresourceformedicalstudentsevaluatingrespiratorytopics |
| mega_collection | American Physiological Society (CrossRef) |
| physical | 5-14 |
| publishDate | 2015 |
| publishDateSort | 2015 |
| publisher | American Physiological Society |
| record_format | ai |
| recordtype | ai |
| series | Advances in Physiology Education |
| source_id | 49 |
| spelling | Azer, Samy A. 1043-4046 1522-1229 American Physiological Society General Medicine Physiology Education http://dx.doi.org/10.1152/advan.00110.2014 <jats:p>The aim of the present study was to critically evaluate the accuracy and readability of English Wikipedia articles on the respiratory system and its disorders and whether they can be a suitable resource for medical students. On April 27, 2014, English Wikipedia was searched for articles on respiratory topics. Using a modified DISCERN instrument, articles were independently scored by three assessors. The scoring targeted content accuracy, frequency of updating, and quality of references. The readability of articles was measured using two other instruments. The mean DISCERN score for the 40 articles identified was 26.4 ± 6.3. Most articles covered causes, signs and symptoms, prevention, and treatment. However, several knowledge deficiencies in the pathogenesis of diseases, investigations needed, and treatment were observed. The total number of references for the 40 articles was 1,654, and the references varied from 0 to 168 references, but several problems were identified in the list of references and citations made. The readability of articles was in the range of 9.4 ± 1.8 to 22.6 ± 10.7 using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level instrument and 10.0 ± 2.6 to 19.6 ± 8.3 using the Readability Coleman-Liau index. A strong correlation was found between the two instruments ( r<jats:sup>2</jats:sup>= 0.744, P < 0.001). The agreement between the assessors had mean κ scores in the range of 0.712–0.857. In conclusion, despite the effort placed in creating Wikipedia respiratory articles by anonymous volunteers (wikipedians), most articles had knowledge deficiencies, were not accurate, and were not suitable for medical students as learning resources.</jats:p> Is Wikipedia a reliable learning resource for medical students? Evaluating respiratory topics Advances in Physiology Education |
| spellingShingle | Azer, Samy A., Advances in Physiology Education, Is Wikipedia a reliable learning resource for medical students? Evaluating respiratory topics, General Medicine, Physiology, Education |
| title | Is Wikipedia a reliable learning resource for medical students? Evaluating respiratory topics |
| title_full | Is Wikipedia a reliable learning resource for medical students? Evaluating respiratory topics |
| title_fullStr | Is Wikipedia a reliable learning resource for medical students? Evaluating respiratory topics |
| title_full_unstemmed | Is Wikipedia a reliable learning resource for medical students? Evaluating respiratory topics |
| title_short | Is Wikipedia a reliable learning resource for medical students? Evaluating respiratory topics |
| title_sort | is wikipedia a reliable learning resource for medical students? evaluating respiratory topics |
| title_unstemmed | Is Wikipedia a reliable learning resource for medical students? Evaluating respiratory topics |
| topic | General Medicine, Physiology, Education |
| url | http://dx.doi.org/10.1152/advan.00110.2014 |