On 7 May 2014 18:30, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466(a)gmail.com> wrote:
"In a blinded process, we randomly selected 10
reviewers to examine 2 of
the selected Wikipedia articles. Each reviewer was an internal medicine
resident or rotating intern at the time of the assignment. This arrangement
created redundancy, giving the study 2 independent reviewers for each
article. Also, by using physicians as reviewers, we ensured a baseline
competency in medical literature interpretation and research."
The articles reviewed were coronary artery disease, lung cancer, major
depressive disorder, osteoarthritis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease,
hypertension, diabetes mellitus, back pain, hyperlipidemia and concussion.
Carry on.
Ah, but the costliest conditions aren't actually comparable to the relevant
Wikipedia articles. For example, the "costly condition" of cancer is
compared to the article on lung cancer, despite the fact that we have an
article on cancer. The costly condition of "trauma-related disorders" - a
very broad topic that would include traumatic amputations, fractures,
burns, and a multitude of other issues is compared to the article on
concussion; the costly condition of "mental disorders" is compared to the
article on major depressive disorder despite, again, haing an article on
mental disorders.
And each article is reviewed by only two people; when one looks at the
results, we see that in most cases the two reviewers provided very
different results.
Risker/Anne