Wikipedia as informal self-education for clinical decision-making in medical practice

Background For almost any topic, a Wikipedia page will appear among the first ten items of a search online. Wikipedia is also a site whose quality and reliability has been called into question. Methods In this paper, we aim to discuss medical practitioners’ use of Wikipedia, what this consists of and what it might be. We consider the context and history of Wikipedia before discussing the relationship between Wikipedia and the medical profession. In so doing, we will consider Wikipedia as a means of informal self-education and the extent to which it might inform clinical decision-making. We compare with the existing literature results from our two small-scale empirical studies of Wikipedia and clinical decision-making. Results Notwithstanding issues over quality and reliability, Wikipedia’s rules on verifiability are such that its articles are very heavily referenced, and this is just as true of health-related articles. The Cochrane/Wikipedia Initiative in improving the quality and reliability of medical and health pages in Wikipedia is significant in increasing reliability. Our respondents largely concurred with the results from earlier studies on the use of Wikipedia by medical practitioners. Conclusion Perhaps the very doubt over Wikipedia’s accuracy is its greatest strength as a means of informal education of doctors. That medical and health articles on Wikipedia can be so fully referenced and still be doubted is arguably a good thing and one whose effects may be spread into other, more trusted, publications. Hence, one might envisage a future where no one source is taken automatically on trust. Keywords Wikipedia, informal education, continued professional development, medical education

Rationale, design, and baseline characteristics in Evaluation of LIXisenatide in Acute Coronary Syndrome, a long-term cardiovascular end point trial of lixisenatide versus placebo

Background: Cardiovascular (CV) disease is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Furthermore, patients with T2DM and acute coronary syndrome (ACS) have a particularly high risk of CV events. The glucagonlike peptide 1 receptor agonist, lixisenatide, improves glycemia, but its effects on CV events have not been thoroughly evaluated. Methods: ELIXA (www.clinicaltrials.gov no. NCT01147250) is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallelgroup, multicenter study of lixisenatide in patients with T2DM and a recent ACS event. The primary aim is to evaluate the effects of lixisenatide on CV morbidity and mortality in a population at high CV risk. The primary efficacy end point is a composite of time to CV death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or hospitalization for unstable angina. Data are systematically collected for safety outcomes, including hypoglycemia, pancreatitis, and malignancy. Results: Enrollment began in July 2010 and ended in August 2013; 6,068 patients from 49 countries were randomized. Of these, 69% are men and 75% are white; at baseline, the mean ± SD age was 60.3 ± 9.7 years, body mass index was 30.2 ± 5.7 kg/m2, and duration of T2DM was 9.3±8.2 years. The qualifying ACS wasamyocardial infarctionin83% and unstableangina in 17%. The study will continue until the positive adjudication of the protocol-specified number of primary CV events. Conclusion: ELIXA will be the first trial to report the safety and efficacy of a glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist in people with T2DM and high CV event risk. © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved