Top Ten Videos to watch

crime scene
Vote
Studio Portrait of Two Young Women Back to Back, One With a Tattoo
Mamie Till and Emmett Till
GOP Redistricting Plot To Unseat Rep. Corrine Brown Exposed
Protests Break Out In Charlotte After Police Shooting
'Keep the Vote Alive!' March Commemorates Civil Rights Act
White man shooting
Gun Violence Continues To Plague Chicago, Over 1,000 Shootings For Year To Date
HS Football
Gun Violence Continues To Plague Chicago, Over 1,000 Shootings For Year To Date
Police Line
US-POLITICS-OBAMA
2016 Republican National Convention
44th NAACP Image Awards - Show
MD Primary
Premiere Of OWN's 'Queen Sugar' - Arrivals
Democratic National Convention
US-VOTE-REPUBLICANS-TRUMP
Los Angeles Rams v San Francisco 49ers
US-POLICE-RACISM-UNREST
Protesters Demonstrate Against Donald Trump's Visit To Flint Michigan
President Obama Speaks On The Economy In Brady Press Briefing Room
Lil Wayne
Construction Continues On The National Museum of African American History To Open In 2016
Preacher Preaching the Gospel
Hillary Clinton Campaigns In Louisville, Kentucky
Miami Dolphins v Seattle Seahawks
US-VOTE-DEMOCRATS-CONVENTION
US-ATTACKS-9/11-ANNIVERSARY
Leave a comment

A blue stethoscope sitting on a laptop

According to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the number of Web sites offering health-related resources grows larger every day. While many online health resources can be useful, others may publish information that isn’t accurate.

So, which sites can you really trust?

According to a new study, not Wikipedia: a new study has found that 90% percent of health articles on the popular “collaboratively-edited Internet Encyclopedia” contain errors.

American researchers compared the online encyclopedia’s entries about 10 conditions with peer reviewed medical research and found that most Wikipedia articles contained multiple mistakes, says HealthDay.

The 10 conditions included in the study were the “most costly” in the United States and included asthma, depression, lung cancer, diabetes, heart disease, back problems and osteoarthritis.

“While Wikipedia is a convenient tool for conducting research, from a public health standpoint patients should not use it as a primary resource because those articles do not go through the same peer-review process as medical journals,” said lead author Dr Robert Hasty, of the Wallace School of Osteopathic Medicine in North Carolina.

The “best resource” for people with health concerns is their doctor, Hasty added.

The study was published in the Journal of the American Osteopathic Association.

Also On News One:
comments – Add Yours