Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Readability and quality of Wikipedia articles on pelvic floor disorders

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Urogynecology Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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).

Conclusions

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Wikipedia. Wikipedia. Accessed 17 March 2020. Available from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia.

  2. Heilman JM, Kemmann E, Bonert M, et al. Wikipedia: a key tool for global public health promotion. J Med Internet Res. 2011;13(1):e14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Farič N, Potts HW. Motivations for contributing to health-related articles on Wikipedia: an interview study. J Med Internet Res. 2014;16(12):e260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Aitken M, Altmann T. Engaging patients through social media: is healthcare ready for empowered and digitally demanding patients? 2014. Accessed 6 May 2020. Available from: http://magazine.imshealth.it/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/IIHI_Social_Media_Report.pdf.

  5. Fox, S. Health online 2013. 2013. Accessed 27 April 2020. Available from: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2013/01/15/health-online-2013.

  6. Laurent MR, Vickers TJ. Seeking health information online: does Wikipedia matter? J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2009;16(4):471–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Thomas GR, Eng L, de Wolff JF, Grover SC. An evaluation of Wikipedia as a resource for patient education in nephrology. Semin Dial. 2013;26(2):159–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Modiri O, Guha D, Alotaibi NM, Ibrahim GM, Lipsman N, Fallah A. Readability and quality of Wikipedia pages on neurosurgical topics. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2018;166:66–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. London DA, Andelman AM, Christiano AV, Kim JH, Hausman MR, Kim JM. Is Wikipedia a complete and accurate source for musculoskeletal anatomy? Surg Radiol Anat. 2019;41(10):1187–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Azer SA. Evaluation of gastroenterology and hepatology articles on Wikipedia: are they suitable as learning resources for medical students? Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014;26(2):155–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Azer SA, AlSwaidan NM, Alshwairikh LA, AlShammari JM. Accuracy and readability of cardiovascular entries on Wikipedia: are they reliable learning resources for medical students? BMJ Open. 2015;5(10):e008187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Azer SA. Is Wikipedia a reliable learning resource for medical students? Evaluating respiratory topics. Adv Physiol Educ. 2015;39(1):5–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Fitzsimmons PR, Michael BD, Hulley JL, Scott GO. A readability assessment of online Parkinson's disease information. J R Coll Physicians Edinb. 2010;40(4):292–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Dueñas-Garcia OF, Kandadai P, Flynn MK, Patterson D, Saini J, O’Dell K. Patient-focused websites related to stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse: a DISCERN quality analysis. Int Urogynecol J. 2015;26(6):875–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Clancy AA, Hickling D, Didomizio L, et al. Patient-targeted websites on overactive bladder: what are our patients reading? Neurourol Urodyn. 2018;37(2):832–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Sajadi KP, Goldman HB, Firoozi F. Assessing internet health information on female pelvic floor disorders. J Urol. 2011;186(2):594–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Roberts H, Zhang D, Dyer GS. The readability of AAOS patient education materials: evaluating the progress since 2008. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2016;98(17):e70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Wang LW, Miller MJ, Schmitt MR, Wen FK. Assessing readability formula differences with written health information materials: application, results, and recommendations. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2013;9(5):503–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. McLaughlin G. SMOG grading: a new readability formula. J Read. 1969;12(8):639–46.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Flesch R. A new readability yardstick. J Appl Psychol. 1948;32(3):221–33.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Tarnowski KJ, Allen DM, Mayhall C, Kelly PA. Readability of pediatric biomedical research informed consent forms. Pediatrics. 1990;85(1):58–62.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Charnock D, Shepperd S, Needham G, Gann R. DISCERN: an instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1999;53(2):105–11.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Azer SA. Are Wikipedia articles reliable learning resources in problem-based learning curricula? In: Bridges S, Chan LK, Hmelo-Silver C, editors. Educational technologies in medical and health sciences education. Advances in medical education. Cham: Springer; 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Suwannakhan A, Casanova-Martínez D, Yurasakpong L, Montriwat P, Meemon K, Limpanuparb T. The quality and readability of English Wikipedia anatomy articles. Anat Sci Educ. 2020;13(4):475–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Smith T. Using Wikipedia for medical research? What to watch for. 2019. Accessed 5 May 2020. Available from: https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/ethics/using-wikipedia-medical-research-what-watch.

  26. Education, U.D.O, N.C.f.E. Statistics, the National Assessment of Education Progress reading achievement levels by grade, education, editor. Washington, DC: US Department of Education. 2011.

  27. MedlinePlus. How to write easy-to-read health materials. Bethesda: US National Library of medicine, National Institutes of Health; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Weiss BD. Health literacy: a manual for clinicians. 2006; Available from: http://lib.ncfh.org/pdfs/6617.pdf.

  29. McGuire LC. Remembering what the doctor said: organization and adults' memory for medical information. Exp Aging Res. 1996;22(4):403–28.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Laws MB, Lee Y, Taubin T, Rogers WH, Wilson IB, et al. Factors associated with patient recall of key information in ambulatory specialty care visits: results of an innovative methodology. PLoS One. 2018;13(2):e0191940.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. O'Mathúna DP. How should clinicians engage with online health information? AMA J Ethics. 2018;20(11):E1059–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was submitted as an abstract to the American Urogynecologic Society’s Pelvic Floor Disorders Week 2020.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 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

    Stephanie J. Handler, Sarah E. Eckhardt, Yoko Takashima, Christina Truong & Tajnoos Yazdany

  2. Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute, Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, CA, USA

    Ashaki M. Jackson

Authors
  1. Stephanie J. Handler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sarah E. Eckhardt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yoko Takashima
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ashaki M. Jackson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Christina Truong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Tajnoos Yazdany
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

S.J. Handler: project development, data collection, data analysis, manuscript writing; S.A. Eckhardt: project development, data collection, manuscript writing; Y. Takashima: project development, data collection, manuscript writing; A.M. Jackson: data analysis; C. Truong: project development; T. Yazdany: project development, data analysis, manuscript writing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephanie J. Handler.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

None.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Handler, S.J., Eckhardt, S.E., Takashima, Y. et al. Readability and quality of Wikipedia articles on pelvic floor disorders. Int Urogynecol J 32, 3249–3258 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-021-04776-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-021-04776-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation