L’article original est en libre accès. Après avoir traité de discordance dans la description de la méthodologie :
Wikipedia vs Peer-Reviewed Medical Literature for Information About the 10 Most Costly Medical Conditions
▻http://www.jaoa.org/content/114/5/368.full.pdf+html
We used a Webbased randomizer (www.random.org) to assign the selected Wikipedia articles to each reviewer. Reviewers were asked to identify every assertion (ie, implication or statement of fact) in the Wikipedia article and to factcheck each assertion against a peer-reviewed source that was published or updated within the past 5 years. Reviewers were sent an e-mail containing examples of assertions (eg, “diuretics are the initial drug of choice for essential hypertension without co-morbidities”). The authors instructed the reviewers to use UpToDate (www.uptodate.com) as the initial means by which to search for peer-reviewed sources. If UpToDate did not produce adequate results, then each reviewer was instructed to use PubMed (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed), Google Scholar (scholar.google.com/), or a search engine of their choice. Each reviewer then reported concordance or discordance between Wikipedia and the peer-reviewed sources.
Il introduit le mot error dans la conclusion
Most Wikipedia articles for the 10 costliest conditions in the United States contain errors compared with standard peer-reviewed sources. Health care professionals, trainees, and patients should use caution when using Wikipedia to answer questions regarding patient care.
Our findings reinforce the idea that physicians and medical students who currently use Wikipedia as a medical reference should be discouraged from doing so because of the potential for errors.