On 7 May 2014 18:30, Andreas Kolbe <[email protected]> wrote: > "In a blinded process, we randomly selected 10 reviewers to examine 2 of > the selected Wikipedia articles. Each reviewer was an internal medicine > resident or rotating intern at the time of the assignment. This arrangement > created redundancy, giving the study 2 independent reviewers for each > article. Also, by using physicians as reviewers, we ensured a baseline > competency in medical literature interpretation and research." > > The articles reviewed were coronary artery disease, lung cancer, major > depressive disorder, osteoarthritis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, > hypertension, diabetes mellitus, back pain, hyperlipidemia and concussion. > > Carry on. > >
Ah, but the costliest conditions aren't actually comparable to the relevant Wikipedia articles. For example, the "costly condition" of cancer is compared to the article on lung cancer, despite the fact that we have an article on cancer. The costly condition of "trauma-related disorders" - a very broad topic that would include traumatic amputations, fractures, burns, and a multitude of other issues is compared to the article on concussion; the costly condition of "mental disorders" is compared to the article on major depressive disorder despite, again, haing an article on mental disorders. And each article is reviewed by only two people; when one looks at the results, we see that in most cases the two reviewers provided very different results. Risker/Anne _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
