Accepted for/Published in: Journal of Medical Internet Research
Date Submitted: Feb 16, 2022
Open Peer Review Period: Feb 16, 2022 - Apr 13, 2022
Date Accepted: Jul 5, 2022
(closed for review but you can still tweet)
Wikipedia provides better quality medical information on male sexual dysfunctions than Baidu Encyclopedia
ABSTRACT
Background:
Sexual dysfunction is a private set of disorders that may cause stigma in patients when discussing their private problems with doctors and feeling reluctant to initiate a face-to-face consultation. Internet search is gradually becoming the first choice for these people to obtain health information. Globally, Wikipedia is the most popular and consulted encyclopedia website validified in English speaking world. As Baidu Encyclopedia is dominating in Chinese-speaking regions, the objectivity and readability of the content are yet to be evaluated. Hence, we aim on evaluating male sexual dysfunction content in Wikipedia and Baidu Encyclopedia.
Objective:
To assess the reliability, readability, and objectivity of Wikipedia and Baidu Encyclopedia contents on male sexual dysfunctions.
Methods:
The Chinese Baidu Encyclopedia and English Wikipedia were investigated. All possible synonymous and derivative keywords for the most common male sexual dysfunctions, erectile dysfunction, premature ejaculation, and their most common complication chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome were screened. Two doctors evaluated the articles in the Chinese Baidu Encyclopedia and English Wikipedia, respectively. The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) scoring system, the DISCERN instrument, and the Global Quality Score (GQS) were used to assess the quality of disease-related articles.
Results:
The DISCERN total scores (P=.002) and JAMA scores (P=.001) of Wikipedia were significantly higher than those of Baidu Encyclopedia, while there was no statistical difference between the GQS scores (P=.31) of these websites. Specifically, the DISCERN scores in Section1 (P<.001) of Wikipedia was significantly higher than that of Baidu Encyclopedia, while the difference between the DISCERN Section2 (P=.14) and Section3 (P=.17) scores was minor on these websites. Furthermore, Wikipedia revealed a higher proportion of high scores in DISCERN Total (P<.001) and Scetion1 (P<.001) than that of Baidu Encyclopedia, while Baidu Encyclopedia and Wikipedia both got low scores in Section 2 (P=.49) and Section 3 (P>.99), and most of these scores are distributed in low quality.
Conclusions:
Wikipedia provides more reliable, higher quality, and more objective information than Baidu Encyclopedia. Yet, there are opportunities for both platforms to vastly improve their content quality. Moreover, both sites revealed similar poor quality content on treatment options. Joint efforts of physicians, physician associations, medical institutions, and Internet platforms are needed to provide reliable, readable, and objective knowledge about diseases. Clinical Trial: NA
Citation
Request queued. Please wait while the file is being generated. It may take some time.
Copyright
© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.