Data from: Accuracy and readability of cardiovascular entries on Wikipedia: are they reliable learning resources for medical students?

Objective: To evaluate accuracy of content and readability level of
English Wikipedia articles on cardiovascular diseases, using quality and
readability tools. Methods: Wikipedia was searched on the 6 October 2013
for articles on cardiovascular diseases. Using a modified DISCERN (DISCERN
is an instrument widely used in assessing online resources), articles were
independently scored by three assessors. The readability was calculated
using Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level. The inter-rater agreement between
evaluators was calculated using the Fleiss κ scale. Results: This study
was based on 47 English Wikipedia entries on cardiovascular diseases. The
DISCERN scores had a median=33 (IQR=6). Four articles (8.5%) were of good
quality (DISCERN score 40–50), 39 (83%) moderate (DISCERN 30–39) and 4
(8.5%) were poor (DISCERN 10–29). Although the entries covered the
aetiology and the clinical picture, there were deficiencies in the
pathophysiology of diseases, signs and symptoms, diagnostic approaches and
treatment. The number of references varied from 1 to 127 references;
25.9±29.4 (mean±SD). Several problems were identified in the list of
references and citations made in the articles. The readability of articles
was 14.3±1.7 (mean±SD); consistent with the readability level for college
students. In comparison, Harrison’s Principles of Internal Medicine 18th
edition had more tables, less references and no significant difference in
number of graphs, images, illustrations or readability level. The overall
agreement between the evaluators was good (Fleiss κ 0.718 (95% CI 0.57 to
0.83). Conclusions: The Wikipedia entries are not aimed at a medical
audience and should not be used as a substitute to recommended medical
resources. Course designers and students should be aware that Wikipedia
entries on cardiovascular diseases lack accuracy, predominantly due to
errors of omission. Further improvement of the Wikipedia content of
cardiovascular entries would be needed before they could be considered a
supplementary resource.