Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute; University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh; Drexel University College of Medicine; Department of Radiation Oncology, Jefferson Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Kimmel Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA; Bruce and Ruth Rappaport Faculty of Medicine, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel.
J Oncol Pract. 2011 Sep;7(5):319-23. doi: 10.1200/JOP.2010.000209. Epub 2011 Aug 4.
A wiki is a collaborative Web site, such as Wikipedia, that can be freely edited. Because of a wiki's lack of formal editorial control, we hypothesized that the content would be less complete and accurate than that of a professional peer-reviewed Web site. In this study, the coverage, accuracy, and readability of cancer information on Wikipedia were compared with those of the patient-orientated National Cancer Institute's Physician Data Query (PDQ) comprehensive cancer database.
For each of 10 cancer types, medically trained personnel scored PDQ and Wikipedia articles for accuracy and presentation of controversies by using an appraisal form. Reliability was assessed by using interobserver variability and test-retest reproducibility. Readability was calculated from word and sentence length.
Evaluators were able to rapidly assess articles (18 minutes/article), with a test-retest reliability of 0.71 and interobserver variability of 0.53. For both Web sites, inaccuracies were rare, less than 2% of information examined. PDQ was significantly more readable than Wikipedia: Flesch-Kincaid grade level 9.6 versus 14.1. There was no difference in depth of coverage between PDQ and Wikipedia (29.9, 34.2, respectively; maximum possible score 72). Controversial aspects of cancer care were relatively poorly discussed in both resources (2.9 and 6.1 for PDQ and Wikipedia, respectively, NS; maximum possible score 18). A planned subanalysis comparing common and uncommon cancers demonstrated no difference.
Although the wiki resource had similar accuracy and depth as the professionally edited database, it was significantly less readable. Further research is required to assess how this influences patients' understanding and retention.
维基百科是一种协作式网站，例如维基百科，它可以自由编辑。由于维基缺乏正式的编辑控制，我们假设其内容会比专业同行评审的网站内容更不完整和准确。在这项研究中，比较了维基百科上癌症信息的覆盖范围、准确性和可读性与以患者为中心的美国国家癌症研究所医师数据查询（PDQ）综合癌症数据库。
对于 10 种癌症类型中的每一种，受过医学培训的人员使用评估表来评估 PDQ 和维基百科文章的准确性和争议呈现方式。通过观察者间变异性和测试-再测试可重复性来评估可靠性。可读性是从单词和句子长度计算得出的。
评估者能够快速评估文章（每篇文章 18 分钟），测试-再测试的可靠性为 0.71，观察者间变异性为 0.53。对于两个网站，错误都很少，不到检查信息的 2%。PDQ 的可读性明显高于维基百科：Flesch-Kincaid 等级分别为 9.6 和 14.1。PDQ 和维基百科的覆盖深度没有差异（分别为 29.9、34.2，最大可能得分为 72）。在两个资源中，癌症护理的争议方面都相对讨论不足（PDQ 和维基百科分别为 2.9 和 6.1，无统计学差异；最大可能得分为 18）。一项比较常见和罕见癌症的计划子分析表明，两者没有差异。
尽管维基资源的准确性和深度与专业编辑的数据库相似，但它的可读性明显较差。需要进一步研究以评估这如何影响患者的理解和保留。
