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)
Warning: This is an author submission that is not peer-reviewed or edited. Preprints - unless they show as "accepted" - should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information.
Wikipedia provides better quality medical information on male sexual dysfunctions than Baidu Encyclopedia
ABSTRACT
Background:
Patients who suffered from sexual dysfunctions may be too embarrassed or reluctant to discuss their issues with the doctor. Internet search is gradually becoming the first choice for these people to obtain health information. Wikipedia is the most popular and consulted encyclopedia website in English, so is Baidu Encyclopedia in Chinese. However, no study has evaluated the objectivity and readability of the content on male sexual dysfunction in Wikipedia and the Baidu Encyclopedia.
Objective:
To assess the reliability, readability, and objectivity of Wikipedia and Baidu Encyclopedia content on male sexual dysfunctions.
Methods:
The Baidu Encyclopedia (in Chinese) and Wikipedia (in English) were investigated. All possible synonymous and derivative keywords for each term were screened. Two doctors evaluated the articles in Baidu Encyclopedia (in Chinese) and Wikipedia (in English), respectively. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to evaluate inter-observer reliability. 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:
As the most common male sexual dysfunctions, erectile dysfunction, premature ejaculation, and their most common complication chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome were assessed. The ICC results showed good consistency between the two reviewers on GQS scores (ICC=0.871), JAMA scores (ICC=0.910), and DISCERN scores (ICC=0.820). Overall, Wikipedia had a significantly higher DISCERN total score (P=0.0020), DISCERN section 1 score (P<0.0001), and JAMA score (P=0.0011) than those of Baidu Encyclopedia. However, there was no statistical difference between the DISCERN section 2 (P=0.1377), DISCERN section 3 (P=0.1736), and GQS scores (P=0.3082) of these two websites.
Conclusions:
Wikipedia provides more reliable, higher quality, and more objective information than Baidu Encyclopedia, while they have a similar impact on patients' choice of treatment options and that the websites are similar in terms of the flow and ease of use. 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.