Misplaced Pages

The Misplaced Pages online encyclopedia has, since the late 2000s, served as a popular source for health information for both laypersons and, in many cases, health care practitioners. Health-related articles on Misplaced Pages are popularly accessed as results from search engines, which frequently deliver links to Misplaced Pages articles. Independent assessments have been made of the number and demographics of people who seek health information on Misplaced Pages, the scope of health information on Misplaced Pages, and the quality and reliability of the information on Misplaced Pages.

The English Misplaced Pages was estimated in 2014 to hold around 25,000 articles on health-related topics. Across Misplaced Pages encyclopedias in all languages there were 155,000 health articles using 950,000 citations to sources and which collectively received 4.8 billion pageviews in 2013. This amount of traffic makes Misplaced Pages one of the most consulted health resources in the world, or perhaps the most consulted resource. A 2024 quantitative content analysis determined that "a sample of popular Misplaced Pages health-related articles for both sexes had comparable quality."

Amount of health content

As of the end of 2013, the English Misplaced Pages had 29,072 medical articles, while across all language versions of Misplaced Pages, there were 155,805 medical articles.

As of March 2017, the English Misplaced Pages had 30,000 medical articles, while there were 164,000 medical articles in other languages.

As of 2017, there were about 6,000 anatomy articles on the English Misplaced Pages; these are not classified as "medical articles" in Misplaced Pages's categorization scheme and thus are not included in the 30,000 figure above.

Academic studies

Accuracy and usefulness

A 2007 study examined a sample of Misplaced Pages pages about the most frequently performed surgical procedures in the United States, and found that 85.7% of them were appropriate for patients and that these articles had "a remarkably high level of internal validity". However, the same study also raised concerns about Misplaced Pages's completeness, noting that only 62.9% of the articles examined were free of "critical omissions". A 2008 study reported that drug information on Misplaced Pages "has a more narrow scope, is less complete, and has more errors of omission" than did such information on the traditionally edited online database Medscape Drug Reference. A 2010 study found that Misplaced Pages's article on osteosarcoma was of decent quality, but that the National Cancer Institute (NCI)'s page was better. The authors concluded that Misplaced Pages should include external links to higher-quality sources.

A 2011 assessment of 50 medical articles on Misplaced Pages found that 56% of the references cited on these pages could be considered reputable, and that each entry contained 29 reputable sources on average. A 2011 study examined Misplaced Pages pages about five statins, and concluded that these pages did not contain incorrect or misleading information, but that they were often missing information about drug interactions and contraindications to use. Another 2011 study examining Misplaced Pages articles on the 20 most widely prescribed drugs found that seven of these articles did not have any references, and concluded that "Misplaced Pages does not provide consistently accurate, complete, and referenced medication information."

An assessment of Misplaced Pages articles in 2012 on dietary supplements found that Misplaced Pages articles were "frequently incomplete, of variable quality, and sometimes inconsistent with reputable sources of information on these products."

A 2013 scoping review published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research summarized the existing evidence about the use of wikis, Misplaced Pages and other collaborative writing applications in health care and found that the available research publications were observational reports rather than the primary research studies which would be necessary to begin drawing conclusions.

A 2014 study that examined 97 Misplaced Pages articles about complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) found that 4% of them had attained "Good article" status, and that CAM articles on Misplaced Pages tended to be significantly shorter than those about conventional therapies.

In May 2014, The Journal of the American Osteopathic Association published an article which concluded that "Most Misplaced Pages articles for the 10 costliest conditions in the United States contain errors compared with standard peer-reviewed sources." Following this paper, many other media sources reported that readers should not trust Misplaced Pages for medical information. Some of Misplaced Pages's prominent health content contributors defended Misplaced Pages and criticized the study, noting that "Misplaced Pages is not about truth, but about verifiability." That is, the Wikipedians contended that since the mission of Misplaced Pages is to reflect what mainstream sources (such as UK's National Institute of Health Care Excellence) say about any given topic, Misplaced Pages will be just as inaccurate as those sources. Since Misplaced Pages's policy is to state these inaccuracies that exist in its sources as though they were true (even when editors know they are not true), Wikipedians feel that pointing out how inaccurate Misplaced Pages's health articles are completely misses the point of Misplaced Pages, since "Misplaced Pages is not about truth, but about verifiability." Wikipedians also noted that the small sample size may have skewed results (in either direction) and that the study may have understated Misplaced Pages's level of inaccuracy by not accounting for the important information that Misplaced Pages articles leave out.

A 2014 study found that when the FDA issues new safety warnings about drugs, in 41% of cases reviewed Misplaced Pages articles about those drugs were updated to give the new safety information within two weeks. Another 23% of Misplaced Pages drug articles were updated to give this information within an average of about 40 days, but 36% of articles are not updated with this information within a year. A 2014 comparison between selected drug information from pharmacology textbooks and comparable information on the English-language and German-language Wikipedias found that the drug information in Misplaced Pages covers most of what is essential for undergraduate pharmacology studies and that it is accurate.

A 2015 study comparing the coverage of the autism-vaccine controversy on several websites found that Misplaced Pages's articles were broadly pro-vaccine. The study attributed this pro-vaccine stance to "this highly controversial topic attracting committed editors who strictly enforce the requirements for academic references." A 2016 study found that drug information on Misplaced Pages was less accurate and complete than that on the medical reference site Micromedex. A 2017 study compared the accuracy of Misplaced Pages articles about the 33 most popular medications with medication guides to the accuracy of their medication guides. The study found that the Misplaced Pages articles were generally less accurate than were the corresponding medication guides.

A 2024 study comparing the Chinese Baidu Baike and the English Misplaced Pages on irritable bowel syndrome found that Misplaced Pages "provides more reliable, higher quality, and more objective" information but noted both are still lacking in quality.

Readability

In 2012, Misplaced Pages's articles on depression and schizophrenia were compared to coverage in Encyclopædia Britannica and a psychiatry textbook and evaluated for their accuracy, up-to-dateness, breadth of coverage, referencing, and readability. Misplaced Pages was ranked highly across all categories except for readability.

A 2013 review of nephrology content on Misplaced Pages found it to be "a comprehensive and fairly reliable medical resource for nephrology patients that is written at a college reading level".

A 2014 study found that Misplaced Pages's article on Parkinson's disease had a Flesch reading ease score of 30.31, meaning that it was difficult to read.

The readability of Misplaced Pages's articles on epilepsy was evaluated and found to be low, indicating that they were difficult to read. Another study found that Misplaced Pages's information about neurological diseases was significantly more difficult to read than the information in the American Academy of Neurology's patient brochures, the Mayo Clinic's website, or MedlinePlus. Another 2015 study, this one authored by Samy Azer, reported that Misplaced Pages should not be used to learn about concepts related to pulmonology students. Another 2015 study by Azer found that Misplaced Pages entries about cardiovascular diseases were "not aimed at a medical audience" and were mainly inaccurate due to errors of omission.

A 2016 study found that Misplaced Pages information about common internal medicine diagnoses was written at a higher grade level than any of the four other sites studied (NIH, WebMD, Mayo Clinic, and "diagnosis-specific websites"). In contrast, another study published the same year found that medical students reading about three unstudied diseases on AccessMedicine and Misplaced Pages experienced less mental effort than did readers of the same diseases on UpToDate.

A 2017 study evaluating 134 Misplaced Pages articles on autoimmune diseases found that they were very difficult to read and required at least a university graduate reading level. The study's authors were concerned by Misplaced Pages's low readability, as people with autoimmune disorders often use Misplaced Pages to research their condition.

A 2018 study evaluating 55 Misplaced Pages articles on neurosurgical topics found that they were significantly more difficult to read than the American Association of Neurological Surgeons's patient information articles, although both Misplaced Pages's articles and the AANS articles required a college reading level.

Other views

Misplaced Pages co-founder Jimmy Wales has said that lack of health information increases preventable deaths in emerging markets and that health information from Misplaced Pages can improve community health. Wales presented the Misplaced Pages Zero project as a channel for delivering health information into places where people have difficulty accessing online information.

As a result of public interest in the 2014 Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa, Misplaced Pages became a popular source of information on Ebola. Doctors who were Misplaced Pages contributors said that Misplaced Pages's quality made it useful.

Alternative medicine

People who promote alternative medicine have complained that Misplaced Pages negatively portrays holistic health treatments including energy medicine, Emotional Freedom Techniques, Thought Field Therapy and Tapas Acupressure Technique. In response, Wales has stated, "If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals – that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Misplaced Pages will cover it appropriately." Similar concerns have been raised regarding its coverage of homeopathy.

Usage

The majority of people in the United States use the internet as a source of health information. The third most common activity for information seeking online is looking up health or medical information. One 2013 study suggested that 22% of healthcare searches online direct users to Misplaced Pages.

Misplaced Pages was described in 2014 in a report published by IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics as "the leading single source" of healthcare information for patients and healthcare professionals. According to the same report, 50% of U.S. physicians that go online for professional purposes are using Misplaced Pages to access information. These facts were referenced on page 17 from the same research report published by IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics on "Engaging Patients Through Social Media," and were recirculated further in popular media outlets and peer-reviewed articles. The IMS report provides a citation to an undated research report in "Taking the Pulse" by Manhattan Research, which is unavailable using most library research databases

In July 2014, Misplaced Pages's medical content in all languages was viewed more often than any other popular healthcare website, including the NIH, WebMD, Mayo Clinic, NHS, WHO, and UpToDate. Some doctors have described their use of Misplaced Pages as a "guilty secret".

General public

A 2015 study compared the popularity of Misplaced Pages's articles on ten of the most common neurological disorders over a 90-day period from April 2014 to July 2014; it found that there was no relationship between the incidence or prevalence of a neurological disorder and the number of page views it received. For example, Misplaced Pages's article on multiple sclerosis was far more popular than its articles on more common disorders like migraine, epilepsy, or stroke. The authors theorized that this might be due to the increasing prevalence of MRI scans, which has led to an increase in incidental findings of white matter lesions. Although most of these lesions have nothing to do with multiple sclerosis, they may lead patients, relatives, and even physicians to perform Internet searches on "multiple sclerosis", which may lead them to the Misplaced Pages article.

Medical students

Misplaced Pages's health information has been described as "transforming how our next doctors learn medicine". Various commentators in health education have said that Misplaced Pages is popular and convenient for medical students.

A 2013 study done at a single Australian medical school showed that 97% of students used Misplaced Pages to study medicine, with the most common reasons being ease of access and ease of understanding. There was no relationship between a student's year in medical school and his or her use of Misplaced Pages, but students further along in medical school were less likely to use Misplaced Pages as their first resource, only resource, or most common resource; they were also more likely to perceive Misplaced Pages as unreliable.

In 2013, UCSF School of Medicine began to offer fourth-year medical students a month-long elective centered around improving Misplaced Pages's health-related articles. Between 2013 and 2015, 43 students took part in the course and chose a single health-related article to work on. A study of their contributions by UCSF faculty found that the students expanded their articles, added higher-quality sources, removed lower-quality sources, and improved readability. The study's authors argued that medical schools should encourage students to contribute to Misplaced Pages, both to improve the quality of its content and to enable students to become better health care educators.

A 2013 study of a particular group of veterinary students found that the majority of these students sought and found medical information on Misplaced Pages.

A 2015 study of five European medical schools found that students who used Misplaced Pages for general information were more likely to use it to look up medical information. 16% of students used Misplaced Pages often for general information, 60% sometimes, and 24% rarely. 12% of students used Misplaced Pages often for medical information, 55% sometimes, and 33% rarely. Almost all of the students (97%) found inaccurate information on Misplaced Pages at least once, but less than 20% of them corrected it.

A 2015 study of medical students at Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia, Canada, found that they ranked Google and Misplaced Pages highly for their accessibility, understandability, and usefulness but ranked PubMed higher for accuracy and trustworthiness.

A 2017 study of online resource use by first-year medical students at Melbourne Medical School found that they used the school's online learning platform most often (daily) and used Google and Misplaced Pages slightly less often (approximately daily). The students considered the learning platform to be most useful, followed by Google and Misplaced Pages, which they considered slightly less useful than the learning platform but significantly more useful than Facebook or Google Scholar. They also considered the learning platform to be the most reliable and considered Google and Misplaced Pages to be significantly less reliable, although they frequently used both websites as a starting point for finding information.

A 2017 study of resources used by medical students during their general surgery clerkship at the University of Florida College of Medicine found that review books were the most commonly used type of study resource, followed by the Internet. Misplaced Pages was the third-most commonly used resource and the most commonly used Internet resource. The study found no correlation between the type of resource used and students' performance on the NBME surgery subject exam.

Residents

A 2009 study of Internet use by 35 junior doctors in the United Kingdom found that 80% of them used Google and 70% of them used Misplaced Pages to look up medical information at least once a week, while only 30% used PubMed. Google and Misplaced Pages were primarily used for background reading, while PubMed and other "best evidence" websites were used to answer specific questions for clinical decision-making.

A 2015 survey of psychiatry residents at Harvard Medical School found that they used online resources twice as often as they used printed resources. The three most commonly used resources were UpToDate, PubMed, and Misplaced Pages. UpToDate was the most used resource and was considered to be the most trustworthy, while PubMed was the second most used resource and was highly rated as a source of personal learning. Misplaced Pages was the third most used resource and received the highest ranking for ease of use; however, it was considered the least trustworthy.

Physicians and other health professionals

A 2013 study of 500 European physicians, most of whom were from Austria and Switzerland, found that general search engines like Google were the most popular type of online medical resource, followed by medical research databases like PubMed, followed in third by Misplaced Pages. 56% of physicians in training (residents) reported using Misplaced Pages, versus only 37% of physicians who had already completed their training.

A 2014 study of 259 health professionals in Spain found that while 53% of them used the Spanish Misplaced Pages to look up medical information during work, only 3% of them considered it reliable and only 16% recommended it to their patients. Only 16% had ever edited a Misplaced Pages article; the most common reasons for not doing were that they did not consider themselves an expert (51%), they preferred to blog or publish peer-reviewed articles (21%), and they were concerned that someone would undo any contributions they made (17%).

Researchers

Misplaced Pages and Wikidata are interconnected projects within the Wikimedia ecosystem. Wikidata contains structured data of medical information which is useful in itself, and which also informs information in Misplaced Pages. The act of putting medical information into the Wikimedia ecosystem changes it in various ways, including making it more accessible, staging it for remixing, and interacting with other information in the Wikimedia platform.

Academic citations

Misplaced Pages has been inappropriately cited as an authoritative source in many health science journals.

Impact on psychological tests

In 2009 a doctor and Misplaced Pages editor, James Heilman, incorporated public domain images of the Rorschach test into Misplaced Pages. Psychologists complained that the increased public exposure to these tests devalued their clinical utility, and that public health was harmed as a result.

Nature of contributors

A 2014 interview study found that around half of the editors of health-related content on the English-language Misplaced Pages are health care professionals, while the other half includes some medical students. An author of this study wrote that this provides "reassurance about the reliability of the website". The study also found that the "core editor community", who actively monitor and edit most health-related articles on the English-language Misplaced Pages, numbered around 300 people. The study found that people who contribute on these topics do so for a variety of reasons, including a desire to better learn the subjects themselves, and a sense of both responsibility and enjoyment in improving others' access to health information.

A 2016 study found that Misplaced Pages editors who contributed to articles on designer drugs were most likely to also contribute to articles on illegal drugs and pharmaceutical drugs, implying that they have a background in pharmacology. They were also more likely to contribute to articles on neurological disorders, psychiatric disorders, other diseases, and cell biology; they were least likely to edit articles about popular culture topics or history.

Traffic statistics in health monitoring

Just as Google Flu Trends was able to correlate searches for flu to local outbreaks of flu, page views of Misplaced Pages articles on flu-related topics have been found to increase in populations experiencing the spread of flu, and of other diseases such as dengue fever and tuberculosis.

Projects to improve health information on Misplaced Pages

In 2009 the National Institutes of Health attempted a pilot project for integrating health information into Misplaced Pages.

In 2011, it was reported that Cancer Research UK had started a program whereby some of its staff would edit Misplaced Pages's cancer-related articles.

The International League Against Epilepsy has an ongoing project called Misplaced Pages Epilepsy project to enhance the quality and knowledge about epilepsy

Health organisations like NIOSH, NIHR and Cochrane also started employing Wikimedians in residence to coordinate their contributions to Misplaced Pages.

The University of California, San Francisco has a program for encouraging students to contribute health content to Misplaced Pages.

See also

• Health information on the Internet
• List of medical wikis
• Reliability of Misplaced Pages
• Science information on Misplaced Pages
• Academic studies of health information on Misplaced Pages, a list maintained within Misplaced Pages of all academic publications on Misplaced Pages's health content

References

1. Laurent, M. R.; Vickers, T. J. (2009). "Seeking Health Information Online: Does Misplaced Pages Matter?". Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. 16 (4): 471–479. doi:10.1197/jamia.M3059. PMC 2705249. PMID 19390105.
2. Heilman, James M; Kemmann, Eckhardt; Bonert, Michael; Chatterjee, Anwesh; Ragar, Brent; Beards, Graham M; et al. (31 January 2011). "Misplaced Pages: A Key Tool for Global Public Health Promotion". Journal of Medical Internet Research. 13 (1): e14. doi:10.2196/jmir.1589. PMC 3221335. PMID 21282098.
3. ^ Faric, Nusa (5 December 2014). "Around half of Misplaced Pages's medical editors are experts". Diff. Wikimedia Foundation. Archived from the original on 14 May 2020. Retrieved 24 August 2023.
4. ^ Heilman, James M; West, Andrew G (2015). "Misplaced Pages and Medicine: Quantifying Readership, Editors, and the Significance of Natural Language". Journal of Medical Internet Research. 17 (3): e62. doi:10.2196/jmir.4069. ISSN 1438-8871. PMC 4376174. PMID 25739399.
5. Farič, Nuša; Potts, Henry Ww; Heilman, James M. (12 September 2024). "Quality of Male and Female Medical Content on English-Language Misplaced Pages: Quantitative Content Analysis". Journal of Medical Internet Research. 26: e47562. doi:10.2196/47562. ISSN 1438-8871. PMC 11424011. PMID 39264697.
6. Shafee, Thomas; Masukume, Gwinyai; Kipersztok, Lisa; Das, Diptanshu; Häggström, Mikael; Heilman, James (November 2017). "Evolution of Misplaced Pages's medical content: past, present and future". Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. 71 (11): 1122–1129. doi:10.1136/jech-2016-208601. PMC 5847101. PMID 28847845.
7. Ledger, Thomas Stephen (September 2017). "Introduction to anatomy on Misplaced Pages". Journal of Anatomy. 231 (3): 430–432. doi:10.1111/joa.12640. PMC 5554820. PMID 28703298.
8. ^ Devgan, Lara; Powe, Neil; Blakey, Brittony; Makary, Martin (September 2007). "Wiki-Surgery? Internal validity of Misplaced Pages as a medical and surgical reference". Journal of the American College of Surgeons. 205 (3): S76 – S77. doi:10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2007.06.190.
9. Clauson, K. A; Polen, H. H; Boulos, M. N K.; Dzenowagis, J. H (18 November 2008). "Scope, Completeness, and Accuracy of Drug Information in Misplaced Pages". Annals of Pharmacotherapy. 42 (12): 1814–1821. doi:10.1345/aph.1L474. PMID 19017825. S2CID 2072846.
10. Leithner A, Maurer-Ertl W, Glehr M, Friesenbichler J, Leithner K, Windhager R (July–August 2010). "Misplaced Pages and osteosarcoma: a trustworthy patients' information?". Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. 17 (4): 373–374. doi:10.1136/jamia.2010.004507. PMC 2995655. PMID 20595302.
11. Haigh, CA (February 2011). "Misplaced Pages as an evidence source for nursing and healthcare students". Nurse Education Today. 31 (2): 135–9. doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2010.05.004. PMID 20646799.
12. Kupferberg, N; Protus, BM (October 2011). "Accuracy and completeness of drug information in Misplaced Pages: an assessment". Journal of the Medical Library Association. 99 (4): 310–3. doi:10.3163/1536-5050.99.4.010. PMC 3193353. PMID 22022226.
13. Lavsa, Stacey M.; Corman, Shelby L.; Culley, Colleen M.; Pummer, Tara L. (April 2011). "Reliability of Misplaced Pages as a medication information source for pharmacy students". Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning. 3 (2): 154–158. doi:10.1016/j.cptl.2011.01.007.
14. Phillips, Jennifer; Lam, Connie; Palmisano, Lisa (2014). "Analysis of the accuracy and readability of herbal supplement information on Misplaced Pages". Journal of the American Pharmacists Association. 54 (4): 406–14. doi:10.1331/JAPhA.2014.13181. ISSN 1544-3191. PMID 25063262.
15. Archambault, Patrick M; Belt, Tom H van de; III, Francisco J Grajales; Faber, Marjan J; Kuziemsky, Craig E; Gagnon, Susie; Bilodeau, Andrea; Rioux, Simon; Nelen, Willianne LDM (8 October 2013). "Wikis and Collaborative Writing Applications in Health Care: A Scoping Review". Journal of Medical Internet Research. 15 (10): e210. doi:10.2196/jmir.2787. PMC 3929050. PMID 24103318.
16. Koo, Malcolm (2014). "Complementary and Alternative Medicine on Misplaced Pages: Opportunities for Improvement". Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine. 2014: 105186. doi:10.1155/2014/105186. PMC 4016830. PMID 24864148.
17. Hasty, Robert; Garvalosa, Ryan; Barbato, Vincenzo; Valdes, Pedro; Powers, David; Hernandez, Emmanuel; et al. (2014). "Misplaced Pages vs Peer-Reviewed Medical Literature for Information About the 10 Most Costly Medical Conditions". The Journal of the American Osteopathic Association. 114 (5): 368–373. doi:10.7556/jaoa.2014.035. ISSN 0098-6151. PMID 24778001.
18. Hasty, Robert (8 May 2014). "Dr. Robert Hasty - Misplaced Pages vs. Peer-Reviewed Medical Articles". youtube.com. Archived from the original on 14 May 2020. Retrieved 4 June 2014.
19. Stephens, Pippa (28 May 2014). "Trust your doctor, not Misplaced Pages, say scientists". bbc.com. Archived from the original on 29 April 2019. Retrieved 4 June 2014.
20. Kedmey, Dan (27 May 2014). "Don't Trust Misplaced Pages When It Comes to Your Health, Study Says". Time. Archived from the original on 4 June 2014. Retrieved 4 June 2014.
21. Gagnon, Tiffany (28 May 2014). "Are Misplaced Pages Health Tips Making You Sick?". Men's Fitness. Archived from the original on 26 September 2017. Retrieved 4 June 2014.
22. Dillner, Luisa (1 June 2014). "Is Misplaced Pages a reliable source for medical advice?". theguardian.com. Archived from the original on 13 May 2020. Retrieved 4 June 2014.
23. Chatterjee, Anwesh; Cooke, Robin M.T.; Furst, Ian; Heilman, James (23 June 2014). "Is Misplaced Pages's medical content really 90% wrong?". cochrane.org. Archived from the original on 2 July 2014. Retrieved 23 June 2014.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link)
24. Pippa Stephens – Health reporter – BBC News – 28 May 2014 Trust your doctor, not Misplaced Pages, say scientists Archived 29 April 2019 at the Wayback Machine (Accessed on 14 March 2017)
25. ^ Hwang, Thomas J.; Bourgeois, Florence T.; Seeger, John D. (2014). "Drug Safety in the Digital Age". New England Journal of Medicine. 370 (26): 2460–2462. doi:10.1056/NEJMp1401767. ISSN 0028-4793. PMID 24963564.
26. Kräenbring, Jona; Monzon Penza, Tika; Gutmann, Joanna; Muehlich, Susanne; Zolk, Oliver; Wojnowski, Leszek; Maas, Renke; Engelhardt, Stefan; Sarikas, Antonio (24 September 2014). "Accuracy and Completeness of Drug Information in Misplaced Pages: A Comparison with Standard Textbooks of Pharmacology". PLOS ONE. 9 (9): e106930. Bibcode:2014PLoSO...9j6930K. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0106930. PMC 4174509. PMID 25250889.
27. Venkatraman, Anand; Garg, Neetika (2015). "Greater freedom of speech on Web 2.0 correlates with dominance of views linking vaccines to autism". Vaccines. 17 (33): 1422–1425. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.01.078. PMID 25665960.
28. Reilly, Timothy; Jackson, William; Berger, Victoria; Candelario, Danielle (November 2016). "Accuracy and completeness of drug information in Misplaced Pages medication monographs". Journal of the American Pharmacists Association. 57 (2): 193–196.e1. doi:10.1016/j.japh.2016.10.007. PMID 27866956.
29. Candelario, Danielle M.; Vazquez, Victoria; Jackson, William; Reilly, Timothy (2017). "Completeness, accuracy, and readability of Misplaced Pages as a reference for patient medication information". Journal of the American Pharmacists Association. 57 (2): 197–200.e1. doi:10.1016/j.japh.2016.12.063. PMID 28139458.
30. Li, Xi; Chen, Kexin; Jia, Yongbin; Yin, Fang; Wen, Xi; Wang, Chunhui; Li, Zhipeng; Zhang, Hu (24 May 2024). "Assessment of medical information on irritable bowel syndrome information in Misplaced Pages and Baidu Encyclopedia: comparative study". PeerJ. 12: e17264. doi:10.7717/peerj.17264. ISSN 2167-8359. PMC 11129691. PMID 38803580.
31. Reavley, N. J.; Mackinnon, A. J.; Morgan, A. J.; Alvarez-Jimenez, M.; Hetrick, S. E.; Killackey, E.; Nelson, B.; Purcell, R.; Yap, M. B. H. (2012). "Quality of information sources about mental disorders: a comparison of Misplaced Pages with centrally controlled web and printed sources". Psychological Medicine. 42 (8): 1753–1762. doi:10.1017/S003329171100287X. hdl:11343/59260. ISSN 0033-2917. PMID 22166182. S2CID 13329595.
32. Thomas, G. R.; Eng, L.; De Wolff, J. F.; Grover, S. C. (2013). "An Evaluation of Misplaced Pages as a Resource for Patient Education in Nephrology". Seminars in Dialysis. 26 (2): 159–63. doi:10.1111/sdi.12059. PMID 23432369. S2CID 23361618.
33. Brigo, F; Erro, R (18 January 2015). "The readability of the English Misplaced Pages article on Parkinson's disease". Neurological Sciences. 36 (6): 1045–6. doi:10.1007/s10072-015-2077-5. PMID 25596713. S2CID 23254630.
34. Brigo, F; Otte, WM; Igwe, SC; Tezzon, F; Nardone, R (16 January 2015). "Clearly written, easily comprehended? The readability of websites providing information on epilepsy". Epilepsy & Behavior. 44C: 35–39. doi:10.1016/j.yebeh.2014.12.029. PMID 25601720. S2CID 24972881.
35. Punia, Vineet; Dagar, Anjali; Agarwal, Nitin; He, Wenzhuan; Hillen, Machteld (December 2014). "Comparison of neurological healthcare oriented educational resources for patients on the internet". Journal of Clinical Neuroscience. 21 (12): 2179–2183. doi:10.1016/j.jocn.2014.05.043. PMID 25194822. S2CID 45947522.
36. Azer, Samy A. (2015). "Is Misplaced Pages a reliable learning resource for medical students? Evaluating respiratory topics". Advances in Physiology Education. 39 (1): 5–14±. doi:10.1152/advan.00110.2014. ISSN 1043-4046. PMID 25727464. S2CID 38229496.
37. Azer, SA; AlSwaidan, NM; Alshwairikh, LA; AlShammari, JM (6 October 2015). "Accuracy and readability of cardiovascular entries on Misplaced Pages: are they reliable learning resources for medical students?". BMJ Open. 5 (10): e008187. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008187. PMC 4606442. PMID 26443650.
38. Hutchinson, N; Baird, GL; Garg, M (29 January 2016). "Examining the reading level of Internet medical information for common Internal Medicine diagnoses". The American Journal of Medicine. 129 (6): 637–9. doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2016.01.008. PMID 26829438.
39. Saparova, D; Nolan, NS (January 2016). "Evaluating the appropriateness of electronic information resources for learning". Journal of the Medical Library Association. 104 (1): 24–32. doi:10.3163/1536-5050.104.1.004. PMC 4722638. PMID 26807049.
40. Watad, Abdulla; Bragazzi, Nicola Luigi; Brigo, Francesco; Sharif, Kassem; Amital, Howard; McGonagle, Dennis; Shoenfeld, Yehuda; Adawi, Mohammad (2017). "Readability of Misplaced Pages Pages on Autoimmune Disorders: Systematic Quantitative Assessment". Journal of Medical Internet Research. 19 (7): e260. doi:10.2196/jmir.8225. PMC 5539385. PMID 28720555.
41. Modiria, Omen; Guhab, Daipayan; Alotaibib, Naif M.; Ibrahim, George M.; Lipsmanb, Nor; Fallahc, Aria (2018). "Readability and quality of wikipedia pages on neurosurgical topics". Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery. 166: 66–70. doi:10.1016/j.clineuro.2018.01.021. PMID 29408776. S2CID 3544057.
42. ^ Williams-Grut, Oscar (3 October 2014). "Misplaced Pages founder Jimmy Wales: 'Free Wiki could save thousands of lives'". The Independent. London: INM. ISSN 0951-9467. OCLC 185201487. Archived from the original on 9 May 2022. Retrieved 7 October 2014.
43. ^ Cohen, Noam (26 October 2014). "Misplaced Pages Emerges as Trusted Internet Source for Ebola Information". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the original on 27 October 2014. Retrieved 27 October 2014.
44. ^ Sifferlin, Alexandra (25 March 2014). "Misplaced Pages Founder Sticks It To 'Lunatic' Holistic Healers". Time. Archived from the original on 23 September 2015. Retrieved 26 March 2014.
45. Hay Newman, Lily (27 March 2014) Jimmy Wales Gets Real, and Sassy, About Misplaced Pages's Holistic Healing Coverage Archived 25 June 2018 at the Wayback Machine, Slate (magazine) Retrieved 23 November 2014
46. ACEP's Position Statement on Misplaced Pages Archived 19 November 2016 at the Wayback Machine energypsych.org Retrieved 23 November 2014
47. Ullman, Dana (10 October 2014). "Dysfunction at Misplaced Pages on Homeopathic Medicine". The Huffington Post. Archived from the original on 27 December 2017. Retrieved 23 November 2014.
48. Fox, S.; Jones, S. (11 June 2009). "The social life of health information". Washington, DC: Pew Internet and American Life Project (cited 6 October 2010). Archived from the original on 12 January 2014. Retrieved 12 October 2015.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: location (link)
49. "Health Fact Sheet". Pew Research Center: Internet Research. 2013. Archived from the original on 26 April 2019. Retrieved 30 April 2019.
50. Makovsky Health (9 September 2013). "Online Health Research Eclipsing Patient-Doctor Conversations – Makovsky". makovsky.com. Archived from the original on 13 October 2012. Retrieved 2 October 2013.
51. Note – sketchy link requires registration. IMS Health (2014). "The use of Misplaced Pages in Health Care". Engaging patients through social media Is healthcare ready for empowered and digitally demanding patients?. IMS Health. pp. 16–26. Archived from the original on 25 January 2014. Retrieved 22 January 2014. Further cited in
    • NPR staff (8 February 2014). "Dr. Misplaced Pages: The 'Double-Edged Sword' Of Crowd-Sourced Medicine". npr.org. NPR. Archived from the original on 2 December 2018. Retrieved 10 February 2014.
    • Feltman, Rachel (28 January 2014). "America's future doctors are starting their careers by saving Misplaced Pages". qz.com. Archived from the original on 4 February 2014. Retrieved 5 February 2014.
    • Tucker, Miriam E. (5 February 2014). "Doctors, Not Just Patients, Use Misplaced Pages, Too: IMS Report". Medscape. Archived from the original on 3 March 2014. Retrieved 7 February 2014.
    • Beck, Julie (5 March 2014). "Doctors' #1 Source for Healthcare Information: Misplaced Pages". theatlantic.com. Archived from the original on 25 December 2018. Retrieved 5 March 2014.
52. Laurent, M. R.; Vickers, T. J. (1 July 2009). "Seeking Health Information Online: Does Misplaced Pages Matter?". Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. 16 (4): 471–479. doi:10.1197/jamia.M3059. PMC 2705249. PMID 19390105.
53. Godlee, F. (27 March 2014). "Unethical, a guilty secret, and still crazy after all these years". BMJ. 348 (mar27 1): g2396. doi:10.1136/bmj.g2396.
54. Brigo, Francesco; Igwe, Stanley C.; Nardone, Raffaele; Lochner, Piergiorgio; Tezzon, Frediano; Otte, Willem M. (July 2015). "Misplaced Pages and neurological disorders". Journal of Clinical Neuroscience. 22 (7): 1170–1172. doi:10.1016/j.jocn.2015.02.006. PMID 25890773. S2CID 25821260.
55. Morris, Nathaniel P. (18 November 2013). "Misplaced Pages's role in medical education brings awesome promise — and a few risks". bostonglobe.com. Archived from the original on 17 May 2020. Retrieved 21 November 2013.
56. Teunis, Teun (March 2013). "The Misplaced Pages Guide to Medicine Could the Online Encyclopaedia Provide the Basis for a New Medical School Curriculum?". Student BMJ. 21: 16–17. doi:10.1136/sbmj.f1091. S2CID 164238600. Archived from the original on 22 November 2016. Retrieved 23 April 2015.
57. Allahwala, Usaid K.; Nadkarni, Aniket; Sebaratnam, Deshan F. (2013). "Misplaced Pages use amongst medical students – New insights into the digital revolution". Medical Teacher. 35 (4): 337. doi:10.3109/0142159X.2012.737064. ISSN 0142-159X. PMID 23137251. S2CID 39910202.
58. Azzam, A; Bresler, D; Leon, A; Maggio, L; Whitaker, E; Heilman, J; Orlowitz, J; Swisher, V; Rasberry, L; Otoide, K; Trotter, F; Ross, W; McCue, JD (February 2017). "Why Medical Schools Should Embrace Misplaced Pages: Final-Year Medical Student Contributions to Misplaced Pages Articles for Academic Credit at One School". Academic Medicine. 92 (2): 194–200. doi:10.1097/ACM.0000000000001381. PMC 5265689. PMID 27627633.
59. Kolski, D; Arlt, S; Birk, S; Heuwieser, W (2013). "Use and acceptance of Wiki systems for students of veterinary medicine". GMS Zeitschrift für Medizinische Ausbildung. 30 (1): Doc10. doi:10.3205/zma000853. PMC 3589678. PMID 23467415.
60. Herbert, Verena G.; Frings, Andreas; Rehatschek, Herwig; Richard, Gilbert; Leithner, Andreas (2015). "Misplaced Pages – challenges and new horizons in enhancing medical education". BMC Medical Education. 15 (32): 32. doi:10.1186/s12909-015-0309-2. PMC 4384304. PMID 25879421.
61. O'Carroll AE, West EP, Dooley D, Gordon KE (June 2015). "Information-Seeking Behaviors of Medical Students: A Cross-Sectional Web-Based Survey". JMIR Medical Education. 1 (1): E4. doi:10.2196/mededu.4267. PMC 5041342. PMID 27731842.
62. Judd, Terry; Elliott, Kristine (2017). "Selection and Use of Online Learning Resources by First-Year Medical Students: Cross-Sectional Study". JMIR Medical Education. 3 (2): e17. doi:10.2196/mededu.7382. PMC 5643842. PMID 28970187.
63. Taylor, Janice A.; Shaw, Christiana M.; Tan, Sanda A.; Falcone, John L. (2017). "Are the kids alright? Review books and the internet as the most common study resources for the general surgery clerkship". The American Journal of Surgery. 215 (1): 191–195. doi:10.1016/j.amjsurg.2017.01.036. PMID 28237045. S2CID 42481415.
64. Hughes, Benjamin; Joshi, Indra; Lemonde, Hugh; Wareham, Jonathan (October 2009). "Junior physician's use of Web 2.0 for information seeking and medical education: A qualitative study". International Journal of Medical Informatics. 78 (10): 645–655. doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2009.04.008. PMID 19501017.
65. Torous, John; Franzen, Jamie; O'Connor, Ryan; Mathew, Ian; Keshavan, Matcher; Kitts, Robert; Boland, Robert (2015). "Psychiatry Residents' Use of Educational Websites: A Pilot Survey Study". Academic Psychiatry. 39 (6): 630–633. doi:10.1007/s40596-015-0335-8. PMID 26077007. S2CID 207500506.
66. Fritz M, Gschwandtner M, Stefanov V, Hanbury A, Samwald M (June 2013). "Utilization and Perceived Problems of Online Medical Resources and Search Tools Among Different Groups of European Physicians". Journal of Medical Internet Research. 15 (6): e122. doi:10.2196/jmir.2436. PMC 3713956. PMID 23803299.
67. Santillán, Azucena; Máñez, Miguel Ángel; Meijome, Xose Manuel (2014). "Uso de Misplaced Pages por los profesionales de la salud" [Use of Misplaced Pages by health professionals]. Gaceta Sanitaria (in Spanish). 28 (6): 522. doi:10.1016/j.gaceta.2014.04.014. PMID 25087118.
68. ^ Waagmeester, Andra; Stupp, Gregory; Burgstaller-Muehlbacher, Sebastian; Good, Benjamin M; Griffith, Malachi; Griffith, Obi L; Hanspers, Kristina; Hermjakob, Henning; Hudson, Toby S; Hybiske, Kevin; Keating, Sarah M; Manske, Magnus; Mayers, Michael; Mietchen, Daniel; Mitraka, Elvira; Pico, Alexander R; Putman, Timothy; Riutta, Anders; Queralt-Rosinach, Nuria; Schriml, Lynn M; Shafee, Thomas; Slenter, Denise; Stephan, Ralf; Thornton, Katherine; Tsueng, Ginger; Tu, Roger; Ul-Hasan, Sabah; Willighagen, Egon; Wu, Chunlei; Su, Andrew I (17 March 2020). "Wikidata as a knowledge graph for the life sciences". eLife. 9: e52614. doi:10.7554/eLife.52614. PMC 7077981. PMID 32180547.
69. Bould, M. D.; Hladkowicz, E. S.; Pigford, A.-A. E.; Ufholz, L.-A.; Postonogova, T.; Shin, E.; Boet, S. (6 March 2014). "References that anyone can edit: review of Misplaced Pages citations in peer reviewed health science literature". BMJ. 348 (mar05 4): g1585. doi:10.1136/bmj.g1585. PMC 3944683. PMID 24603564.
70. Blackwell, Tom (12 March 2014). "'It's against all principles of scientific reporting': Thousands of medical papers cite Misplaced Pages, study says". National Post. Archived from the original on 13 March 2014. Retrieved 13 March 2014.
71. ^ * Cohen, Noam (28 July 2009). "Has Misplaced Pages Created a Rorschach Cheat Sheet? Analyze That". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the original on 9 May 2021. Retrieved 2 October 2013.
    • Lilienfeld, Scott (3 August 2009). "The Rorschach-Misplaced Pages Kerfuffle Continues". Psychology Today. Archived from the original on 19 May 2024. Retrieved 2 October 2013.
    • White, Patrick (29 July 2009). "Rorschach and Misplaced Pages: The battle of the inkblots". The Globe and Mail. Archived from the original on 1 August 2020. Retrieved 2 October 2013.
    • Schultz, D. S.; Brabender, V. M. (2013). "More Challenges Since Misplaced Pages: The Effects of Exposure to Internet Information About the Rorschach on Selected Comprehensive System Variables". Journal of Personality Assessment. 95 (2): 149–158. doi:10.1080/00223891.2012.725438. PMID 23030722. S2CID 21422063.
72. ^ Farič, Nuša; Potts, Henry WW (2014). "Motivations for Contributing to Health-Related Articles on Misplaced Pages: An Interview Study". Journal of Medical Internet Research. 16 (12): e260. doi:10.2196/jmir.3569. ISSN 1438-8871. PMC 4275502. PMID 25498308.
73. Dijkstra, Louis J.; Krieg, Lisa J. (2016). "From MDMA to Lady Gaga: Expertise and contribution behavior of editing communities on Misplaced Pages". Procedia Computer Science. 1: 96–106. arXiv:1005.5384. doi:10.1016/j.procs.2016.11.013.
74. McIver, David J.; Brownstein, John S.; Salathé, Marcel (17 April 2014). "Misplaced Pages Usage Estimates Prevalence of Influenza-Like Illness in the United States in Near Real-Time". PLOS Computational Biology. 10 (4): e1003581. Bibcode:2014PLSCB..10E3581M. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003581. PMC 3990502. PMID 24743682.
75. "How Misplaced Pages Data Is Revolutionizing Flu Forecasting". MIT Technology Review. 3 November 2014. Archived from the original on 21 May 2020. Retrieved 4 November 2014.
76. Generous, Nicholas; Fairchild, Geoffrey; Deshpande, Alina; Del Valle, Sara Y.; Priedhorsky, Reid; Salathé, Marcel (13 November 2014). "Global Disease Monitoring and Forecasting with Misplaced Pages". PLOS Computational Biology. 10 (11): e1003892. arXiv:1405.3612. Bibcode:2014PLSCB..10E3892G. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003892. PMC 4231164. PMID 25392913.
77. "Misplaced Pages 'foresees virus outbreaks'". BBC News. 13 November 2014. Archived from the original on 17 May 2020. Retrieved 14 November 2014.
78. *Madrigal, Alexis (21 July 2009). "Misplaced Pages Teaches NIH Scientists Wiki Culture – Wired Science". Wired. Archived from the original on 27 November 2013. Retrieved 2 October 2013.
    • Garnett, Carla (4 September 2009). "NIH, Misplaced Pages Join Forces to Improve Online Health Info". NIH Record. Archived from the original on 1 April 2012. Retrieved 4 June 2012.
79. "Cancer charity 'tidies' Misplaced Pages". BBC News. 4 April 2011. Archived from the original on 15 May 2020. Retrieved 6 November 2014.
80. "The ILAE Misplaced Pages Epilepsy Project". www.ILAE.ORG. Archived from the original on 25 November 2021. Retrieved 25 November 2021.
81. "Collaboration with Misplaced Pages". Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 19 May 2015. Archived from the original on 15 January 2022. Retrieved 14 January 2022.
82. "National Institute for Health Research launches Wikimedian in Residence in collaboration with Wikimedia UK". WMUK. 10 December 2021. Archived from the original on 20 January 2022. Retrieved 14 January 2022.
83. "Improving Health-Related Content on Misplaced Pages". community.cochrane.org. Archived from the original on 14 January 2022. Retrieved 14 January 2022.
84. * Cohen, Noam (29 September 2013). "Editing Misplaced Pages Pages for Med School Credit". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the original on 30 March 2019. Retrieved 1 October 2013.
    • Bunim, Juliana (26 September 2013). "UCSF First U.S. Medical School to Offer Credit For Misplaced Pages Articles". ucsf.edu. Archived from the original on 11 October 2018. Retrieved 1 October 2013.
    • Beck, Julie (1 October 2013). "Should I Be Getting Health Information From Misplaced Pages?". The Atlantic. Archived from the original on 1 October 2013. Retrieved 2 October 2013.

• Health education
• Telemedicine
• Misplaced Pages content