Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Los Angeles County Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, 1000 W. Carson Street, Torrance, CA, 90509, USA.
Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute, Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, CA, USA.
Int Urogynecol J. 2021 Dec;32(12):3249-3258. doi: 10.1007/s00192-021-04776-0. Epub 2021 Apr 2.
This study is aimed at evaluating the readability and quality of Wikipedia articles on pelvic floor disorders (PFD) and comparing their content with International Urogynecological Association patient education leaflets.
Readability was assessed using six different readability scales, including the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) Index, which is considered superior for scoring healthcare information. Quality was assessed by three female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery fellows using the modified DISCERN instrument. DISCERN is validated to evaluate the quality of written consumer health information; it was subsequently modified by health education researchers to enable the evaluation of Wikipedia articles.
We evaluated 30 Wikipedia articles that correlated with 29 International Urogynecological Association leaflets. The mean SMOG score of the Wikipedia articles was 12.0 ± 2.1 (12th-grade reading level) whereas the mean SMOG score of the International Urological Association (IUGA) leaflets was 3.4 ± 0.3 (third-grade reading level, p < 0.001). The mean modified DISCERN score of the Wikipedia articles was 34.43 ± 5.90 (moderate quality); however, the mean modified DISCERN score of the IUGA literature was 45.02 ± 1.36 (good quality, p < 0.001).
Wikipedia articles on PFD are neither readable nor reliable: they require a 12th-grade-level education for comprehension and are merely rated moderate in quality. In comparison, IUGA leaflets require a third-grade education for comprehension and are rated good in quality. Urogynecological providers should provide appropriate health education materials to patients, as Wikipedia is both a popular and sometimes inaccurate resource for patients.
本研究旨在评估有关盆底功能障碍 (PFD) 的维基百科文章的可读性和质量，并将其内容与国际尿妇科协会患者教育手册进行比较。
使用六种不同的可读性评分标准评估可读性，包括 SMOG 指数，该指数被认为是评分医疗保健信息的优越指标。质量由三名女性盆腔医学和重建外科研究员使用改良的 DISCERN 工具进行评估。DISCERN 经过验证可用于评估书面消费者健康信息的质量；随后，健康教育研究人员对其进行了修改，以便评估维基百科文章。
我们评估了与 29 份国际尿妇科协会手册相对应的 30 篇维基百科文章。维基百科文章的平均 SMOG 评分为 12.0±2.1（相当于 12 年级阅读水平），而国际尿妇科协会 (IUGA) 手册的平均 SMOG 评分为 3.4±0.3（相当于 3 年级阅读水平，p<0.001）。维基百科文章的平均改良 DISCERN 评分为 34.43±5.90（中等质量）；然而，IUGA 文献的平均改良 DISCERN 评分为 45.02±1.36（高质量，p<0.001）。
关于 PFD 的维基百科文章既不可读也不可靠：它们需要 12 年级的教育水平才能理解，并且仅被评为中等质量。相比之下，IUGA 手册只需 3 年级的教育水平即可理解，且质量良好。尿妇科医生应为患者提供适当的健康教育材料，因为维基百科是患者常用的资源，但有时不够准确。
