Adding evidence of the effects of treatments into relevant Wikipedia pages: a randomised trial.

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. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: IRCT2017070330407N2.

Acetylsalicylic acid (aspirin) for schizophrenia.

BACKGROUND: Schizophrenia is a serious chronic mental illness affecting an estimated 21 million people worldwide and there is increasing evidence linking inflammation in the brain to the pathophysiology of schizophrenia. Antipsychotic drugs are the conventional treatment for people with schizophrenia but are not always fully effective. Acetylsalicylic acid (aspirin) is a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) with properties that inhibit the proinflammatory status of the brain. Using aspirin as an adjunct (add-on) treatment to antipsychotics or as a stand-alone treatment could be a novel, relatively inexpensive option for people with schizophrenia. OBJECTIVES: To review the effects of acetylsalicylic acid (aspirin) as adjunct (add-on) or as stand-alone treatment for people with schizophrenia. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register (last search 8 March 2018) which is based on regular searches of MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, CINAHL, BIOSIS, AMED, PsycINFO and registries of Clinical Trials. There are no language, date, document type, or publication status limitations for inclusion of records in the register. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised clinical trials focusing on aspirin for people with schizophrenia. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data independently. For binary outcomes, we calculated risk ratio (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI), on an intention-to-treat (ITT) basis. For continuous data, we estimated the mean difference (MD) between groups and its 95% CI. We employed a fixed-effect model for analyses. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and created a 'Summary of findings' table using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included two studies, both comparing the effects of adding aspirin to standard antipsychotic treatment with adding placebo to standard antipsychotic treatment. We were hoping to find high-quality data for seven main outcomes of importance: clinically important change in global state, mental state, cognitive functioning and quality of life, numbers leaving the study early, incidence of gastrointestinal adverse events and hospital admission. Clinically important change data were not reported. Global state data were reported by one study as 'unspecified problem necessitating change in dose or type of antipsychotics'; there was no clear difference between treatment groups for this outcome (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.88; studies = 1; participants = 70; very low-quality evidence). Both trials measured mental state using the Positive and Negative Symptom Scale (PANSS), and mean total PANSS endpoint scores favoured the adjunct aspirin group in the medium term (MD -6.56, 95% CI -12.04 to -1.08; studies = 2; participants = 130; very low-quality evidence). Less than 10% of each group's participants left the studies early (for any reason) and by around three months there was no clear difference between numbers leaving early from the aspirin group compared to numbers leaving early from the placebo group suggesting aspirin is acceptable (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.40 to 3.14; studies = 2; participants = 130; very low-quality evidence). There was some gastric upset in both groups but rates were not clearly different between the treatment groups (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.94; studies = 1; participants = 70; very low-quality evidence). We are unclear if 'change in hospital status' is an unfavourable outcome or not as one study reported equivocal data (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.90; studies = 1; participants = 70; very low-quality evidence). It should be noted that all the above results were based on data of very low-quality and were difficult to interpret for clinicians or patients, and that the two studies, completed in the last decade, failed to report any usable outcomes on cognitive functioning or quality of life. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We highlighted the evidence that some pioneering researchers feel this question is important enough to merit testing in randomised trials. However, we also highlighted that the evidence produced from these trials was weak and inconclusive. It was impossible to draw clear conclusions on the therapeutic value of aspirin for schizophrenia from these short, small and limited trials.

Day of the week to tweet: a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effects of using health social media on different days of the working week on web activity. DESIGN: Individually randomised controlled parallel group superiority trial. SETTING: Twitter and Weibo. PARTICIPANTS: 194 Cochrane Schizophrenia Group full reviews with an abstract and plain language summary web page. There were no human participants. INTERVENTIONS: Three randomly ordered slightly different messages (maximum of 140 characters), each containing a short URL to the freely accessible summary page, were sent on specific times on a single day. Each of these messages sent on Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday was compared with the one sent on Monday. OUTCOME: The primary outcome was visits to the relevant Cochrane summary web page at 1 week. Secondary outcomes were other metrics of web activity at 1 week. RESULTS: There was no evidence that disseminating microblogs on different days of the working week resulted in any differences in target website activity as measured by Google Analytics (n=194, all page views, adjusted ratios of geometric means 0.86 (95% CI 0.63 to 1.18), 0.88 (95% CI 0.64 to 1.21), 0.88 (95% CI 0.65 to 1.21), 0.91 (95% CI 0.66 to 1.24) for Tuesday-Friday, respectively, overall p=0.89). There were consistent findings for all outcomes. However, activity on the review site substantially increased compared with weeks preceding the intervention. CONCLUSION: There are no clear differences in the effect when 1 weekday is compared with another, but our study suggests that using microblogging social media such as Twitter and Weibo do increase information-seeking behaviour on health. Tweet any day but do Tweet.

SEED: a tool for disseminating systematic review data into Wikipedia.

Wikipedia, the free-content online encyclopaedia, contains many heavily accessed pages relating to healthcare. Cochrane systematic reviews contain much high-grade evidence but dissemination into Wikipedia has been slow. New skills are needed to both translate and relocate data from Cochrane reviews to implant into Wikipedia pages. This letter introduces a programme to greatly simplify the process of disseminating the summary of findings of Cochrane reviews into Wikipedia pages.