Correction: Quality of Male and Female Medical Content on English-Language Wikipedia: Quantitative Content Analysis

Nuša Farič,Henry WW Potts,James M Heilman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/preprints.66590

IF: 7.076

2024-09-26

Journal of Medical Internet Research

Abstract:Related Article Correction of: https://www.jmir.org/2024/1/e47562/

health care sciences & services,medical informatics

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Corrigendum: Comparative Analysis of Lower Genital Tract Microbiome Between PCOS and Healthy Women.

Yaoyao Tu,Guangyong Zheng,Guolian Ding,Yanting Wu,Ji Xi,Yingzhou Ge,Hangchao Gu,Yingyu Wang,Jianzhong Sheng,Xinmei Liu,Li Jin,Hefeng Huang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2020.635088

IF: 4

2021-01-01

Frontiers in Physiology

Abstract:[This corrects the article DOI: 10.3389/fphys.2020.01108.].
Readability of Wikipedia pages on andrology and gynecology: comparative study

Muhammad Shumail Naveed

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-022-00916-5

2022-09-13

Universal Access in the Information Society

Abstract:In this era of modern information and communication technology, the Internet is rapidly being used for health-related information. According to recent studies and trends, the Internet is a main source of health information. Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia on the internet and is widely used for health-related information, but frequently criticized for its readability. In this article, the readability of Wikipedia pages on andrology and gynecology is examined. A total of 110 Wikipedia pages (55 from each area) were analyzed. The readability of Wikipedia articles was assessed using seven readability measures: (1) the Automated Readability Index, (2) the Coleman–Liau Index, (3) the Flesch Reading Ease, (4) the Flesch–Kincaid Grade Level, (5) the Gunning Fog Index, (6) the Linsear Write, and (7) the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook. All the readability scales concluded that Wikipedia pages on andrology and gynecology were difficult to read and best suited for advanced readers, such as college students and above. Pages on andrology were a little more difficult to understand than those on gynecology. The Mann–Whitney U test, however, finds no statistical difference between the sampled pages of andrology and gynecology. The findings recommend that the relevant community work together to improve the readability of Wikipedia pages regarding andrology and gynecology.

computer science, cybernetics,ergonomics
Author Correction: BHMT Polymorphism and Susceptibility to PTE in Chinese Patients.

W-H Zhang,S-M Zhao,J-F Guo,Y-P Liu,Y-Q Jiang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.26355/eurrev_202307_32944

2023-01-01

European review for medical and pharmacological sciences

Abstract:Correction to: Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 2023; 27 (9): 4098-4102. DOI: 10.26355/eurrev_202305_32317-PMID: 37203835-published online on May 15, 2023. After publication, the authors applied a correction in the Funding section. The section has been amended as follows: This study was supported by the research program of Jilin Provincial Science and Technology Department (No. 20190201011J). There are amendments to this paper. The Publisher apologizes for any inconvenience this may cause. https://www.europeanreview.org/article/32317.
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in Women: A Biologically Focused Review with a Systematic Search Strategy [Corrigendum]

MeiLan K Han

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/copd.s346814

2021-11-01

Abstract:[This corrects the article DOI: 10.2147/COPD.S237228.].

respiratory system
Correction: Issues in the Adoption of Online Medical Care: Cross-Sectional Questionnaire Survey

Yuka Sugawara,Yosuke Hirakawa,Masao Iwagami,Haruo Kuroki,Shuhei Mitani,Ataru Inagaki,Hiroki Ohashi,Mitsuru Kubota,Soichi Koike,Rie Wakimizu,Masaomi Nangaku

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/68439

IF: 7.076

2024-11-28

Journal of Medical Internet Research

Abstract:Related Article Correction of: https://www.jmir.org/2024/1/e64159

health care sciences & services,medical informatics
Manuscript Quality before and after Peer Review and Editing at Annals of Internal Medicine

Steven N. Goodman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-121-1-199407010-00003

IF: 39.2

1994-07-01

Annals of Internal Medicine

Abstract:OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of peer review and editing on manuscript quality.SETTING: Editorial offices of Annals of Internal Medicine.DESIGN: Masked before-after study. MANUSCRIPTS: 111 consecutive original research manuscripts accepted for publication at Annals between March 1992 and March 1993.MEASUREMENTS: We used a manuscript quality assessment tool of 34 items to evaluate the quality of the research report, not the quality of the research itself. Each item was scored on a 1 to 5 scale. Forty-four expert assessors unaware of the design or aims of the study evaluated the manuscripts, with different persons evaluating the two versions of each manuscript (before and after the editorial process).RESULTS: 33 of the 34 items changed in the direction of improvement, with the largest improvements seen in the discussion of study limitations, generalizations, use of confidence intervals, and the tone of conclusions. Overall, the percentage of items scored three or more increased by an absolute 7.3% (95% CI, 3.3% to 11.3%) from a baseline of 75%. The average item score improved by 0.23 points (CI, 0.07 to 0.39) from a baseline mean of 3.5. Manuscripts rated in the bottom 50% showed two- to threefold larger improvements than those in the top 50%, after correction for regression to the mean.CONCLUSIONS: Peer review and editing improve the quality of medical research reporting, particularly in those areas that readers rely on most heavily to decide on the importance and generalizability of the findings.

medicine, general & internal
Visual Gender Biases in Wikipedia: A Systematic Evaluation across the Ten Most Spoken Languages

Pablo Beytía,Pushkal Agarwal,Miriam Redi,Vivek K. Singh

DOI: https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/59rey

2021-12-01

Abstract:Wikipedia, a collaborative crowd-sourced platform, is the largest, most visited online encyclopedia. Since it spreads information freely in more than 300 languages, many users, tools, and dashboards rely on its content. Hence, there is a need to maintain its fairness and completeness. However, previous research has indicated the existence of a significant gender gap in Wikipedia biographical articles. We already know that a minimal proportion of those articles portray women and there are gender asymmetries in the textual content of these articles, but little has been reported about the visual aspects (e.g., image volume or image quality) of the gender gap. Here, we analyze all biographies available on Wikipedia across 300 occupations in the ten most widely spoken languages, and undertake quantitative and qualitative analysis of gender differences in the written and visual content. The cross-lingual results indicate that (1) much of the male bias in content arises when editors select which personalities should have a Wikipedia page, (2) the trends in written and visual content are quite dissimilar, (3) men biographies tend to have more images across languages, and (4) female biographies average better visual quality. A more granular analysis is performed on English Wikipedia, distinguishing trends in occupations and qualitatively analyzing science and technology biographies. The overall results shed light on the kinds of visual biases that emerge in the collaborative creation of Wikipedia and yield guidelines for future management of contributions on the platform.
Correction to "Abortion and mental health outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis"

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1437

2024-09-02

Abstract:[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1002/cl2.1410.].
Correction: Patient education materials for non-specific low back pain and sciatica: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Bradley Furlong,Holly Etchegary,Kris Aubrey-Bassler,Michelle Swab,Andrea Pike,Amanda Hall

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307675

IF: 3.7

2024-07-19

PLoS ONE

Abstract:Discover a faster, simpler path to publishing in a high-quality journal. PLOS ONE promises fair, rigorous peer review, broad scope, and wide readership – a perfect fit for your research every time. Learn More Submit Now Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field. For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here. Loading metrics Open Access Correction S3 File is uploaded incorrectly. Please view the correct S3 File below. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307675.s001 (DOCX) Citation: Furlong B, Etchegary H, Aubrey-Bassler K, Swab M, Pike A, Hall A (2024) Correction: Patient education materials for non-specific low back pain and sciatica: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 19(7): e0307675. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307675 Published: July 18, 2024 Copyright: © 2024 Furlong et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. PLOS is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) corporation, #C2354500, based in San Francisco, California, US

multidisciplinary sciences
Quality evaluation of health information about breast cancer treatment found on WeChat public accounts

Wenjuan Yang,Bingyan Li,Min Liu,Dongtong Tong,Yang Zou,Xing Li,Lunfang Xie

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13690-023-01184-2

2023-09-15

Abstract:Background: With growing cases of breast cancer, WeChat public account, an important information publishing platform of WeChat, has become a breast cancer treatment health information provider to a huge audience. It is essential for health information to possess high-level accuracy and reliability. This work evaluates the quality of health information on breast cancer treatment in WeChat public accounts (WPAs), to benefit the patients while making treatment decisions and provide WPA authors with suggestions on publishing high-quality treatment health information. Methods: With "breast cancer" as keywords, searches were implemented on weixin.sogou.com and the WeChat app. The WPAs oriented to patients with breast cancer were selected, and the four latest articles of each WPA were included in a set to be evaluated with DISCERN. Results: A total of 37 WPAs and 136 articles published by them were included. The accounts operated by individual users were 54%. The median of overall quality of 136 articles was 44 (interquartile range = 10.75) and ranked as "fair", of which only 28 (21%) were of "good" or higher quality. Among these articles, 74 (54%) were related to medical treatments, and 13 of them mentioned clinical trials; 36 (27%) dealt with surgery. 101 (74.26%) omitted additional sources of information; 102 (75%) did not explicitly suggest shared decision-making. A significant difference was not found in the dimensions "reliability of the articles" and "specific details of information on treatment choices" between the distinct categories of account subjects and various treatment options (P > 0.05). Conclusions: The quality of the articles on breast cancer treatment health information in WPAs was moderate. WPA producers should focus on improving the reliability of information and providing more details on treatment options, to assist patients in making optimal decisions during treatment.
Correction: A general method for estimating the prevalence of influenza-like-symptoms with Wikipedia data

Giovanni De Toni,Cristian Consonni,Alberto Montresor

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0314302

IF: 3.7

2024-11-24

PLoS ONE

Abstract:In Table 1, the headings of columns three (Dutch) and four (German) are swapped. Please see the correct Table 1 here.

multidisciplinary sciences
Health Science Students’ Perspective on Quality-of-Care-Relating Medical Professionalism [Corrigendum]

Pham Duong Uyen Binh,Pham Le An,Nghia An Nguyen,Dan Van Nguyen,Giao Huynh,Harumi Gomi,Motofumi Yoshida

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/jmdh.s357776

2022-01-01

Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare

Abstract:[This corrects the article DOI: 10.2147/JMDH.S321094.].

health care sciences & services
Corrigendum to “sex Differences in HIV Treatment Outcomes and Adherence by Exposure Groups among Adults in Guangdong, China: A Retrospective Observational Cohort Study” [eclinicalmedicine 22 (2020) 100351]

Linghua Li,Tanwei Yuan,Junfeng Wang,Thomas Fitzpatrick,Quanmin Li,Peiyang Li,Xiaoping Tang,Guohong Xu,Dahui Chen,Bowen Liang,Weiping Cai,Huachun Zou

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2020.100618

IF: 15.1

2020-01-01

EClinicalMedicine

Abstract:[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2020.100351.].
Why and how medical schools, peer-reviewed journals, and research funders should promote Wikipedia editing

Gwinyai Masukume

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2020.1749796

2020-04-08

Studies in Higher Education

Abstract:Do academics, both directly and indirectly involved with healthcare, have a moral mandate to ensure that Wikipedia has the most accurate, up-to-date and understandable information? From the perspective of a physician who is also a long-time Wikipedia editor, the ethical, moral, and power dynamics of the medical community's interaction with Wikipedia are explored in this paper. An attempt is made to reconcile and identify the key stakeholders affected by Wikipedia's accuracy and credibility, including medical institutions such as peer-reviewed journals, medical schools, research funders and academic reward systems. These stakeholders act as the true guardians of <i>Primum non nocere</i> – first to do no harm. Finally, suggestions are made on how to increase the sharing of medical knowledge on Wikipedia by focusing advocacy towards these 'true guardians' rather than relying on the benevolence of individual academics.

education & educational research
The quality, suitability, and readability of web-based resources on endometriosis-associated dyspareunia: A systematic review

Abdul-Fatawu Abdulai,A.Fuchsia Howard,Gurkiran Parmar,Heather Noga,Abdul Aziz Abdul- Ghafoor,Michelle Lisonek,Paul J Yong

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/14604582241231151

2024-02-05

Health Informatics Journal

Abstract:Health Informatics Journal, Volume 30, Issue 1, January-March 2024. People commonly and increasingly rely on the internet to search for health information, including those related to endometriosis-associated dyspareunia. Yet the content of such websites may be of variable accuracy and quality. This review aims to evaluate the quality, readability, and suitability of web-based resources on endometriosis-associated dyspareunia for patients. We searched 3 databases – Google, Bing, and Yahoo – to identify websites related to endometriosis-associated dyspareunia. Two independent reviewers screened the search results against inclusion and exclusion criteria. Another set of two reviewers evaluated the selected websites using validated measurement instruments. Out of 450 websites, 21 met the inclusion criteria and were evaluated. More than half of the websites had information on content updates, reported on authorship, or disclosed sponsorship information. The mean quality and suitability scores were 47.5 (SD = 13.3) and 65.2 (SD = 13.6) respectively, thus suggesting generally adequate quality and suitability levels. However, the mean readability scores exceeded the recommended level for health-related websites. The poor readability of the websites might limit accessibility for a significant proportion of patients with low educational levels. The findings of this review have implications for designing high-quality, readable and up-to-date web interventions for people who rely on web platforms as an alternative or complementary source of health information on dyspareunia.

health care sciences & services,medical informatics
Correction: Practice Standards in International Medical Departments of Public Academic Hospitals in China: Cross-Sectional Study

Ying Zhou,Yaxu Zhou,Di Xu,Jie Min,Yu Du,Qi Duan,Wen Bao,Yingying Sun,Huiqin Xi,Chunming Wang,Evelyne Bischof

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/60644

2024-05-27

Abstract:[This corrects the article DOI: 10.2196/53898.].
Correction to: A year in review in Minerva Anestesiologica 2019. Critical care

Franco Cavaliere,Gianni Biancofiore,Elena Bignami,Edoardo De Robertis,Alberto Giannini,Salvatore Grasso,Marco Piastra,Sabino Scolletta,Fabio S Taccone,Pierpaolo Terragni

DOI: https://doi.org/10.23736/S0375-9393.20.14856-9

Abstract:This corrects the article DOI:10.23736/S0375-9393.20.14384-0.
(069) Assessing Readability, Understandability, Actionability, And Quality Of Online Health Resources For Sexual Health During Menopause

J Foster,P Sarlashkar,M Mauskar

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jsxmed/qdae054.064

2024-06-19

The Journal of Sexual Medicine

Abstract:Introduction Recent studies indicate that over half of adults in the United States rely on the internet for accessing health-related information. (1) Patients experiencing menopause may feel a sense of embarrassment about their sexual health and, consequently, turn to online resources to maintain a sense of anonymity. Despite a shift in information-seeking patterns within the last decade, there remains a significant gap in the research assessing the quality of the content that patients encounter online. While prior research has investigated the readability of materials for sexual health promotion and sexual health in men, there are no prior investigations addressing the quality of sexual health materials for individuals experiencing menopause. Objective Our objective was to evaluate online patient- oriented health resources concerning sexual health during menopause for their readability, understandability, actionability, and overall quality. Methods We conducted a Google keyword search for "sexual health during menopause," reviewed the first three pages of results, and included 22 unique, relevant resources after excluding journal articles and materials not intended for patient education. We assessed readability using multiple established indices, including the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level. Understandability and actionability were evaluated with the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT), with a threshold of 70% for actionable or understandable resources. (2) The JAMA benchmark criteria were used to evaluate the quality of each site.(3) Further analysis will consist of qualitative content analysis and assessment of accuracy. Finally, these resources will be compared by the website publisher's industry for any statistically significant differences in any of these outcomes. Results No materials met the American Medical Association's recommended readability standards by any metric.(4) The reading level of the reviewed resources ranged from grades 7 to 18. PEMAT scoring revealed that three resources reached the threshold for understandability though none met the criteria for actionability. On average, understandability was 60.1% and actionability was 51.8%. No resource met all four JAMA benchmark criteria. The average criteria met was 2.0. Correlation analysis demonstrated a strong negative correlation between materials' readability and understandability (r = −0.459, P < .05). ConclusionsDisclosure No.

urology & nephrology
Research Design and Statistical Methods in Chinese Medical Journals

Qian Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.280.3.283

IF: 11.816

1998-07-15

JAMA

Abstract:CONTEXT: Study design and statistical analyses have improved in journals published in Western countries, but the type of research designs and statistical methods used in medical journals outside Western countries has not been assessed.OBJECTIVES: To determine the frequency of research designs and statistical techniques used in Chinese medical journals, types of statistical errors present, and trends over a 10-year period.DESIGN: Evaluation of all original articles published in 5 leading journals in 1985 (N = 640) and in 1995 (N = 954).MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Research designs and statistical methods.RESULTS: Compared with 1985, significant improvement was seen in 1995; the percentages of original articles reporting clinical trials, prospective studies, or basic science research increased from 18% to 31% (P<.001), the proportion of papers using statistical tests increased from 40% to 60% (P<.001), more sophisticated statistical methods were used, and of those articles using statistics, the proportion using appropriate methods increased from 22% to 46% (P<.001). In both years, the most commonly used statistical methods were t tests and contingency tables. The most common errors were presentation of P values without specifying the test used, use of multiple t tests instead of analysis of variance, and use of unpaired t tests when paired tests were required.CONCLUSIONS: The use of statistical methods in Chinese medical journals research is improving, and by 1995, the frequency of using statistical methods in published articles was similar to the results determined in previous studies of journals. However, the lack of or inappropriate use of statistics remains a serious problem.

medicine, general & internal
Analysis of English Language Errors in Medical Writing: A Systematic Literature Review

Wei Shen,Afendi Hamat,Jun Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol15no2.9

2024-06-28

Arab World English Journal

Abstract:Effective communication in medical writing is essential for conveying accurate and understandable information to healthcare professionals and patients. English language errors in medical literature can lead to misunderstandings, misinterpretations, and potentially harmful consequences. This systematic literature review aims to identify, analyze, and categorize common English language errors encountered in medical writing. This study identifies gaps in existing literature on language errors in medical writing and reveals areas that need further investigation or where more comprehensive guidelines are required. This study addresses six questions: (1) What types of language errors are discussed in the current literature? (2) What types of medical writing are involved in the current literature? (3) Which countries or areas are involved in the current literature? (4) What are the research methods used in the studies? (5) What tools are used in the studies? (6) What are the limitations of these studies? To answer these questions, this review searched nine databases and one platform, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Fulltext, ProQuest Ebook Central (e-Books), Scopus, Web of Science, Wiley Online Library (e-Journals & e-Books) (PPV), Science Direct, Cambridge Core e-Books, Oxford Press Scholarship Online (e-Books), Google Scholar, and Carian Bestari@UKM / Discovery Service@UKM. Finally, ten studies were selected, including articles and books. The findings provide insights into types of language errors, types of medical writing, countries or areas of medical writing, research methods, tools, and limitations of these ten studies, highlighting the importance of linguistic accuracy and proficiency in medical writing.

Correction: Quality of Male and Female Medical Content on English-Language Wikipedia: Quantitative Content Analysis

Corrigendum: Comparative Analysis of Lower Genital Tract Microbiome Between PCOS and Healthy Women.

Readability of Wikipedia pages on andrology and gynecology: comparative study

Author Correction: BHMT Polymorphism and Susceptibility to PTE in Chinese Patients.

Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in Women: A Biologically Focused Review with a Systematic Search Strategy [Corrigendum]

Correction: Issues in the Adoption of Online Medical Care: Cross-Sectional Questionnaire Survey

Manuscript Quality before and after Peer Review and Editing at Annals of Internal Medicine

Visual Gender Biases in Wikipedia: A Systematic Evaluation across the Ten Most Spoken Languages

Correction to "Abortion and mental health outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis"

Correction: Patient education materials for non-specific low back pain and sciatica: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Quality evaluation of health information about breast cancer treatment found on WeChat public accounts

Correction: A general method for estimating the prevalence of influenza-like-symptoms with Wikipedia data

Health Science Students’ Perspective on Quality-of-Care-Relating Medical Professionalism [Corrigendum]

Corrigendum to “sex Differences in HIV Treatment Outcomes and Adherence by Exposure Groups among Adults in Guangdong, China: A Retrospective Observational Cohort Study” [eclinicalmedicine 22 (2020) 100351]

Why and how medical schools, peer-reviewed journals, and research funders should promote Wikipedia editing

The quality, suitability, and readability of web-based resources on endometriosis-associated dyspareunia: A systematic review

Correction: Practice Standards in International Medical Departments of Public Academic Hospitals in China: Cross-Sectional Study

Correction to: A year in review in Minerva Anestesiologica 2019. Critical care

(069) Assessing Readability, Understandability, Actionability, And Quality Of Online Health Resources For Sexual Health During Menopause

Research Design and Statistical Methods in Chinese Medical Journals

Analysis of English Language Errors in Medical Writing: A Systematic Literature Review