advertisement
25 November 2008

Dubious meds info on Wikipedia

Consumers who rely on Wikipedia for information on medications are putting themselves at risk of potentially harmful drug interactions and adverse effects.

0
Consumers who rely on the user-edited Web resource Wikipedia for information on medications are putting themselves at risk of potentially harmful drug interactions and adverse effects, new research shows.

Dr Kevin A. Clauson of Nova Southeastern University in Florida, US, and his colleagues found few factual errors in their evaluation of Wikipedia entries on 80 drugs. But these entries were often missing important information, for example the fact that the anti-inflammatory drug Arthrotec (diclofenac and misoprostol) can cause pregnant women to miscarry, or that St John's wort can interfere with the action of the HIV drug Prezista (darunavir).

"If people went and used this as a sole or authoritative source without contacting a health professional...those are the types of negative impacts that can occur," Clauson told Reuters Health.

Wikipedia is an online, free encyclopaedia covering millions of topics in more than 250 languages. Users add and edit content themselves. Clauson and his colleagues decided to investigate the accuracy and completeness of drug information on Wikipedia given that one third of people doing health-related Internet searches are looking for information on over-the-counter or prescription drugs, and that a Wikipedia entry is often the first to pop up with a Google search.

The researchers compared Wikipedia to Medscape Drug Reference (MDR), a peer-reviewed, free site, by looking for answers to 80 different questions covering eight categories of drug information, for example adverse drug events, dosages, and mechanism of action.

While MDR provided answers to 82.5% of the questions, Wikipedia could only answer 40%. Answers were less likely to be complete for Wikipedia, as well. Of the answers the researchers found on Wikipedia, none were factually inaccurate, while there were four inaccurate answers in MDR. But the researchers spotted 48 errors of omission in the Wikipedia entries, compared to 14 for MDR.

"I think that these errors of omission can be just as dangerous" as inaccuracies, Clauson told Reuters Health. He pointed out that drug company representatives have been caught deleting information from Wikipedia entries that make their drugs look unsafe.

The researchers did find that after 90 days, the Wikipedia entries showed a "marked improvement" in scope.

Wikipedia can be a good jumping-off point for Internet research, Clauson said, but shouldn't be seen as the last word on any topic - and should certainly not be used as a resource by medical professionals. "You still probably want to go to medlineplus.gov or medscape.com for good quality information that you can feel confident in," he said. - (Anne Harding/Reuters Health)

SOURCE: The Annals of Pharmacotherapy, December 2008.

Read more:
Doctors turning to Google

November 2008

 
NEXT ON HEALTH24X
advertisement

Read Health24’s Comments Policy

Comment on this story
0 comments
Comments have been closed for this article.

Live healthier

The debate continues »

Working out in the concrete jungle 7 top butt exercises for guys 10 things pole dancing can do for you

The running vs. walking debate

There are many different theories when it comes to the running vs. walking for health and weight loss.

Veganism a crime? »

Running the Comrades Marathon on a vegan diet Are vegans unnatural beasts? Can a vegan be really healthy?

Should it be a crime to raise a baby on vegan food?

After a number of cases of malnourishment in Italy, it may become a crime to feed children under 16 a vegan diet.