1,720,957 research outputs found
Adding evidence of the effects of treatments into relevant wikipedia pages: a randomised trial
Get PDFBackground Wikipedia is among the most popular sites on the internet, and around a fifth of all healthcare searches online directs to a Wikipedia page. In recent years steps have been taken to enhance the quality of their healthcare pages, such as the creation of the WikiProject Medicine initiative. In 2014 a partnership was formalised between Wikipedia and Cochrane Collaboration with similar aims. Three years ago, a group of medical students helped to formulate a protocol for the first ever randomised trial, whose aim was to test the value of Wikipedia in informing users about healthcare. Objectives To investigate the effects of adding high-grade quantitative evidence of outcomes of treatments into relevant Wikipedia pages on further information-seeking behaviour by the end-user. Methods: We randomised 70 Wikipedia pages, identified as highly relevant to up-to-date Cochrane Schizophrenia systematic reviews that contained a Summary of Findings table. Eligible Wikipedia pages in the intervention group (35) were seeded with tables listing best evidence of the effects of treatment, and hyperlinks to the source Cochrane review. Eligible pages in the control group (35) remained unchanged. Results The main outcome measures were routinely collected data on access to the full text and summary web page of the relevant Cochrane reviews (after 12 months). There was 100% follow-up of the 70 randomised pages. Six of the 35 in the intervention group had the tabular format deleted by other Wikipedia users during the course of the study, but all pages continued to report the same data within the text. The study found no evidence of significant effect on either of the co-primary outcomes: full text access adjusted ratio of geometric means 1.30, 95% CI: 0.71 to 2.38; page views 1.14, 95% CI: 0.6 to 2.13. Results were similar for all other outcomes, with the exception of Altmetric score for which there was evidence of clear effect (1.36, 95% CI: 1.05 to 1.78). Conclusions The pursuit of fair balance within Wikipedia healthcare pages is impressive and its reach unsurpassed. Enriching Wikipedia content is, potentially, a powerful way to improve health literacy among the public, and it is possible to test the effects of seeding pages with evidence. Though increased traffic to Cochrane reviews in the intervention group lacked statistical significance, there was nonetheless consistently an increase in all outcome measures. For every person that sought and clicked the reference on the 'intervention' Wikipedia page to seek more information (the primary outcome), many more are likely to have been informed by the page alone; the inclusion of high-quality data may have lessened the desire to click out to the original source. If demonstrated that the end-user becomes more informed as a result of such intervention, the potential as a tool for dissemination could be invaluable. Future studies should take such factors into consideration, and aim to replicate, expand and further develop our trial. Trial registration number IRCT2017070330407N2https://ebm.bmj.com/content/27/Suppl_2/A15.1.inf
Adding evidence of the effects of treatments into relevant Wikipedia pages: a randomised trial.
Get PDFOpen access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license.Objectives: To investigate the effects of adding high-grade quantitative evidence of outcomes of treatments into relevant Wikipedia pages on further information-seeking behaviour by the use of routinely collected data.
Setting: Wikipedia, Cochrane summary pages and the Cochrane Library.
Design: Randomised trial.
Participants: Wikipedia pages which were highly relevant to up-to-date Cochrane Schizophrenia systematic reviews that contained a Summary of Findings table.
Interventions: Eligible Wikipedia pages in the intervention group were seeded with tables of best evidence of the effects of care and hyperlinks to the source Cochrane review. Eligible Wikipedia pages in the control group were left unchanged.
Main Outcome Measures: Routinely collected data on access to the full text and summary web page (after 12 months).
Results: We randomised 70 Wikipedia pages (100% follow-up). Six of the 35 Wikipedia pages in the intervention group had the tabular format deleted during the study but all pages continued to report the same data within the text. There was no evidence of effect on either of the coprimary outcomes: full-text access adjusted ratio of geometric means 1.30, 95% CI: 0.71 to 2.38; page views 1.14, 95% CI: 0.6 to 2.13. Results were similar for all other outcomes, with exception of Altmetric score for which there was some evidence of clear effect (1.36, 95% CI: 1.05 to 1.78).
Conclusions: The pursuit of fair balance within Wikipedia healthcare pages is impressive and its reach unsurpassed. For every person who sought and clicked the reference on the 'intervention' Wikipedia page to seek more information (the primary outcome), many more are likely to have been informed by the page alone. Enriching Wikipedia content is, potentially, a powerful way to improve health literacy and it is possible to test the effects of seeding pages with evidence. This trial should be replicated, expanded and developed
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Get PDFThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
Variations on the Author
Get PDF“Variations on the Author” discusses two of Eduardo Coutinho’s recent films (Um Dia na Vida, from 2010, and Últimas Conversas, posthumously released in 2015) and their contribution to the general question of documentary authorship. The director’s filmography is characterized by a consistent yet self-effacing form of authorial self-inscription: Coutinho often features as an interviewer that rather than express opinions propels discourses; an interviewer that is good at listening. This mode of self-inscription characterizes him as an author who is not expressive but who is nonetheless markedly present on the screen. In Um Dia na Vida, however, Coutinho is completely absent form the image, while Últimas Conversas, on the contrary, includes a confessional prologue that moves the director from the margins to the center of his films. This article examines the ways in which these works stand out in the filmography of a director who offers new insights into the notion of cinematic authorship
Appropriate Similarity Measures for Author Cocitation Analysis
Get PDFWe provide a number of new insights into the methodological discussion about author cocitation analysis. We first argue that the use of the Pearson correlation for measuring the similarity between authors’ cocitation profiles is not very satisfactory. We then discuss what kind of similarity measures may be used as an alternative to the Pearson correlation. We consider three similarity measures in particular. One is the well-known cosine. The other two similarity measures have not been used before in the bibliometric literature. Finally, we show by means of an example that our findings have a high practical relevance.information science;Pearson correlation;cosine;similarity measure;author cocitation analysis
Dispelling the Myths Behind First-author Citation Counts
Get PDFWe conducted a full-scale evaluative citation analysis study of scholars in the XML research field to explore just how different from each other author rankings resulting from different citation counting methods actually are, and to demonstrate the capability of emerging data and tools on the Web in supporting more realistic citation counting methods. Our results contest some common arguments for the continued
use of first-author citation counts in the evaluation of scholars, such as high correlations between author rankings by first-author citation counts and other citation
counting methods, and high costs of using more realistic citation counting methods that are not well-supported by the ISI databases. It is argued that increasingly available digital full text research papers make it possible for citation analysis studies to go beyond what the ISI databases have directly supported and to employ more
sophisticated methods
koamabayili/VECTRON-author-checklist: VECTRON author checklist
No full textWe have done our best to complete the author checklist relating to the use of animals in the hut study. Note that the objective for the hut study was to evaluate the IRS treatment applications for residual efficacy against Anopheles mosquitoes, including the local An. coluzzii mosquito population. Cows were only used to attract mosquitoes into the huts and no tests were carried out directly on the cows. The author checklist is intended for use with studies where experiments are carried out on animals, which is why we have had such difficulty in completing this for the hut study, as many of the questions do not relate to how the cows were used
Author-wise bibliometric analysis based on entropy.
No full textAuthor-wise bibliometric analysis based on entropy.</p
- …
