A 2014 study that examined 97 Wikipedia articles about complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) found that 4% of them had attained "Good article" status, and that CAM articles on Wikipedia tended to be significantly shorter than those about conventional therapies.[15] In May 2014, The Journal of the American Osteopathic Association published an article which concluded that "Most Wikipedia articles for the 10 costliest conditions in the United States contain errors compared with standard peer-reviewed sources."[16][17] Following this paper, many other media sources reported that readers should not trust Wikipedia for medical information.[18][19][20][21] Wikipedia's contributors to its health content defended Wikipedia and criticized this study,[22] as the research is considered severely flawed including basic methodological flaws like the conclusions are not supported by the data provided.[23]