"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.
On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 11:19 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 7 May 2014 23:14, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
For what it's worth, there was a recent external study of Wikipedia's medical content that came to unflattering results: http://www.jaoa.org/content/114/5/368.full
Osteopaths.
Perhaps we could ask the chiropractors and homeopaths what they think too.
- d.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe