医院获得性感染的风险因素和控制:维基百科与科学文献的比较

E. Allara
{"title":"医院获得性感染的风险因素和控制:维基百科与科学文献的比较","authors":"E. Allara","doi":"10.2427/8744","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: nowadays Wikipedia is one of the main on-line sources of general information. It contains several items about nosocomial infections and their prevention, together of items on virtually every scientific topic. \nThis study aims to assess whether Wikipedia can be considered a reliable source for professional updating, concerning Healthcare-associated Infections (HAI). \nMethods: Wikipedia has been searched in order to gather items on HAI. 387 items were found with a search string. The field of research was reduced at those articles (27 items) containing exhaustive information in relation to prevention of HAI. The messages contained in those articles were than compared with the recommendations of a selected guideline (NICE 2003), completed by a literature search, with the aim of testing their reliability and exhaustivity. \nResults: 15 Wiki items were found and 51 messages selected. NICE guidelines contained 119 recommendations and 52 more recommendations has been found in a further literature search. 45.1% of Wikipedia’s messages were even found in the guidelines. On this percentage, 21.6% completely agreed with the messages of the guidelines, 15.7% partially agreed, 3.9% disagreed and 3.9% showed different level of evidence in different articles. Moreover, 54.9% of Wikipedia’s messages were not included in the guidelines and 84.2% of the recommendations contained in the guidelines were not present in Wikipedia. \nConclusions: Wikipedia should not be considered as a reliable source for professional updating on HAI.","PeriodicalId":45811,"journal":{"name":"Epidemiology Biostatistics and Public Health","volume":"17 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Risk factors and control of hospital acquired infections: a comparison between Wikipedia and scientific literature\",\"authors\":\"E. Allara\",\"doi\":\"10.2427/8744\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: nowadays Wikipedia is one of the main on-line sources of general information. It contains several items about nosocomial infections and their prevention, together of items on virtually every scientific topic. \\nThis study aims to assess whether Wikipedia can be considered a reliable source for professional updating, concerning Healthcare-associated Infections (HAI). \\nMethods: Wikipedia has been searched in order to gather items on HAI. 387 items were found with a search string. The field of research was reduced at those articles (27 items) containing exhaustive information in relation to prevention of HAI. The messages contained in those articles were than compared with the recommendations of a selected guideline (NICE 2003), completed by a literature search, with the aim of testing their reliability and exhaustivity. \\nResults: 15 Wiki items were found and 51 messages selected. NICE guidelines contained 119 recommendations and 52 more recommendations has been found in a further literature search. 45.1% of Wikipedia’s messages were even found in the guidelines. On this percentage, 21.6% completely agreed with the messages of the guidelines, 15.7% partially agreed, 3.9% disagreed and 3.9% showed different level of evidence in different articles. Moreover, 54.9% of Wikipedia’s messages were not included in the guidelines and 84.2% of the recommendations contained in the guidelines were not present in Wikipedia. \\nConclusions: Wikipedia should not be considered as a reliable source for professional updating on HAI.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45811,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Epidemiology Biostatistics and Public Health\",\"volume\":\"17 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-07-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Epidemiology Biostatistics and Public Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2427/8744\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Nursing\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Epidemiology Biostatistics and Public Health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2427/8744","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Nursing","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:如今维基百科是一般信息的主要在线来源之一。它包含了一些关于医院感染及其预防的项目,以及几乎所有科学主题的项目。本研究旨在评估维基百科是否可以被认为是一个可靠的专业更新来源,涉及医疗保健相关感染(HAI)。方法:检索维基百科以收集HAI上的条目。用一个搜索字符串找到了387个项目。研究领域减少到载有关于预防HAI的详尽资料的那些条款(27个项目)。将这些文章中包含的信息与选定指南(NICE 2003)的建议进行比较,通过文献检索完成,目的是测试其可靠性和详尽性。结果:找到了15个Wiki条目,选择了51条消息。NICE指南包含119条建议,在进一步的文献检索中发现了52条建议。45.1%的维基百科信息甚至可以在指南中找到。在这个百分比中,21.6%的人完全同意指南的信息,15.7%的人部分同意,3.9%的人不同意,3.9%的人在不同的文章中表现出不同程度的证据。此外,54.9%的维基百科信息没有包含在指南中,84.2%的指南中包含的建议没有出现在维基百科中。结论:Wikipedia不应被视为HAI专业更新的可靠来源。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Risk factors and control of hospital acquired infections: a comparison between Wikipedia and scientific literature
Background: nowadays Wikipedia is one of the main on-line sources of general information. It contains several items about nosocomial infections and their prevention, together of items on virtually every scientific topic. This study aims to assess whether Wikipedia can be considered a reliable source for professional updating, concerning Healthcare-associated Infections (HAI). Methods: Wikipedia has been searched in order to gather items on HAI. 387 items were found with a search string. The field of research was reduced at those articles (27 items) containing exhaustive information in relation to prevention of HAI. The messages contained in those articles were than compared with the recommendations of a selected guideline (NICE 2003), completed by a literature search, with the aim of testing their reliability and exhaustivity. Results: 15 Wiki items were found and 51 messages selected. NICE guidelines contained 119 recommendations and 52 more recommendations has been found in a further literature search. 45.1% of Wikipedia’s messages were even found in the guidelines. On this percentage, 21.6% completely agreed with the messages of the guidelines, 15.7% partially agreed, 3.9% disagreed and 3.9% showed different level of evidence in different articles. Moreover, 54.9% of Wikipedia’s messages were not included in the guidelines and 84.2% of the recommendations contained in the guidelines were not present in Wikipedia. Conclusions: Wikipedia should not be considered as a reliable source for professional updating on HAI.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Epidemiology Biostatistics and Public Health
Epidemiology Biostatistics and Public Health PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Epidemiology, Biostatistics, and Public Health (EBPH) is a multidisciplinary journal that has two broad aims: -To support the international public health community with publications on health service research, health care management, health policy, and health economics. -To strengthen the evidences on effective preventive interventions. -To advance public health methods, including biostatistics and epidemiology. EBPH welcomes submissions on all public health issues (including topics like eHealth, big data, personalized prevention, epidemiology and risk factors of chronic and infectious diseases); on basic and applied research in epidemiology; and in biostatistics methodology. Primary studies, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses are all welcome, as are research protocols for observational and experimental studies. EBPH aims to be a cross-discipline, international forum for scientific integration and evidence-based policymaking, combining the methodological aspects of epidemiology, biostatistics, and public health research with their practical applications.
期刊最新文献
Knowledge, acceptance and willingness to pay for Dengue vaccine in Yogyakarta and Jakarta Bayesian modeling of clustered competing risks survival times with spatial random effects Anti-HPV vaccination in women treated for HPV-related lesions: effective vaccination strategy for achieving HPV-related diseases control Socioeconomic status and health literacy as the important predictors of general health in Iran: a structural equation modeling approach Stem-Skilled Parents and Autism Spectrum Disorder in Offspring: A Case-Control Study
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1