The researchers identified the 10 most costly conditions in terms of public and private expenditure, and one corresponding Wikipedia article for each. They included coronary artery disease, lung cancer, major depressive order, and osteoarthritis, to name a few. Reviewers pitted all articles with peer-reviewed sources and found out that there was a statistically significant discordance in 9 out of 10 Wikipedia entries; directly implied that articles from the popular encyclopaedia are not reliable sources.
Upon completion, the study quickly caught on. The worries of several concerned parties also intensified when it was found that 50-70% of doctors and medical students have used it as a source of information. Dr. Robert Hasty, the report’s lead author, recently stated that while Wikipedia is convenient, patients should not use it as a primary resource as its articles don’t go through the same peer-review process as medical journals.
http://www.thegoodhealthpractice.co.uk/scientists-trust-an-accredited-private-gp-in-marlow-not-wikipedia/
No comments:
Post a Comment