↓ Skip to main content

Wikipedia – challenges and new horizons in enhancing medical education

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
28 tweeters
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
59 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Wikipedia – challenges and new horizons in enhancing medical education
Published in
BMC Medical Education, March 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12909-015-0309-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Verena G Herbert, Andreas Frings, Herwig Rehatschek, Gisbert Richard, Andreas Leithner

Abstract

Wikipedia gains growing attention as a provider of health information. This study aimed to investigate the use, relevance and challenges of Wikipedia among medical students. An online questionnaire was made accessible to students at five medical universities in Germany, Austria, and Norway. Besides demographical data, the questions covered the role of Wikipedia in the academic life of medical students. The questionnaire investigated if the students had ever found erroneous medical entries and whether they corrected these. A frequent use of Wikipedia in general is statistically significant correlated with a frequent use in medical studies (p < 0.001). Information retrieved from Wikipedia is predominantly critically appraised either by comparing it to profound knowledge (79%) and/or to specific literature (75%). Despite most (97%) respondents disclosed that they already had found false information in Wikipedia, recognized errors were seldomly corrected (~20%). The information retrieved from Wikipedia is critically appraised. However, we found shortcomings in handling erroneous entries. We argue for professional responsibility among medical students in dealing with this dynamic resource. Moreover, we encourage medical schools to supplement information to Wikipedia to further benefit from the vast possibilities of this platform.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 28 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Unknown 58 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 17%
Student > Master 10 17%
Student > Bachelor 8 14%
Student > Postgraduate 6 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 7%
Other 15 25%
Unknown 6 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 36%
Computer Science 5 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 8%
Social Sciences 4 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 5%
Other 13 22%
Unknown 8 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 May 2021.
All research outputs
#1,524,677
of 22,749,166 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#177
of 3,302 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,984
of 258,541 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#7
of 62 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,749,166 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,302 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 258,541 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 62 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.