They may lack independent editorial oversight and peer review with no supervision of content by the parent journal. Many, but not all, papers published in medical journals are primary sources for facts about the research and discoveries made. Use up-to-date evidence edit Keeping an article up-to-date while maintaining the more-important goal of reliability is important. "The Journey of Research - Levels of Evidence CAPhO". However, when it comes to actually writing a Wikipedia article, it is misleading to give a full citation for a source after reading only its abstract; the abstract necessarily presents a stripped-down version of the conclusions and omits the background. "Brandon/Hill selected list of print books for the small medical library" (PDF).
Annals of Internal Medicine. In addition, most self-published books or books published by vanity presses undergo no independent fact-checking or peer review and, consequently, are not reliable sources. Core basic science and biology journals include Nature, Science and Cell. Urumi (33) Göteborg 6 review 0, verified, online, xiaoPing (36) Göteborg 4 review. Schwitzer G (May 2008).
There is no magic number, but it is useful to compare the authors to others' in the same field of study. Cooper BE, Lee WE, Goldacre BM, Sanders TA (August 2012). Such reviews typically do not contain primary research, but can make interpretations and draw conclusions from primary sources that no Wikipedia editor would be allowed. However, they normally contain introductory, background, or review sections that place their research in the context of previous work; these sections may be cited in Wikipedia with care: they are often incomplete 20 and typically less useful or reliable. A sponsored supplement need not necessarily have a COI with its medical content; for instance, public health agencies may also sponsor supplements. "Predatory open access journals in a performance-based funding model: Common journals in Beall's list and in version V of the vabb-SHW" (PDF). Obvious or overt bias in a source is a difficult problem for Wikipedia. If an editor has access to both the original source and the summary, and finds both helpful, it is good practice to cite both sources together (see: Citing medical sources for details).
Although significant-minority views are welcome in Wikipedia, such views must be presented in the context of their acceptance by experts in the field. Each engine has quirks, advantages, and disadvantages, and may not return the results that the editor needs unless used carefully. The image below attempts to clarify some internal ranking of statements from different organizations in the weight they are given on Wikipedia. "Seeking health information online: does Wikipedia matter?". "Scientists' Elusive Goal: Reproducing Study Results". Wikipedia:Biomedical information, wikipedia's articles are not meant to provide medical advice. A reason to avoid primary sources in the biomedical field especially papers reporting results of in vitro experiments is that they are often not replicable 2 3 4 and are therefore unsuitable for use in generating encyclopedic, reliable biomedical content. "How do US journalists cover treatments, tests, products, and procedures? Medicine is not an exception.
22 For example, clicking on the "Review" tab will help narrow the search to review articles. Conversely, an older primary source that is seminal, replicated, and often-cited may be mentioned in the main text in a context established by reviews. Editors should not perform detailed academic peer review. (2016 Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work in medical journals (PDF archived (PDF) from the original on, retrieved Conflicts-of-interest section Archived at the Wayback Machine, Last update on 2015 Dec. Additionally, popular science books are useful sources, but generally should not be referenced on Wikipedia to support medical statements (see #Popular press ). A few high-quality journals, such as PLoS Medicine, publish only freely readable sources. The Retracted article on dopaminergic neurotoxicity of mdma and the Schön scandal.) Summarize scientific consensus edit Scientific journals are the best place to find both primary source articles about experiments, including medical studies, and secondary sources. Such reviews should be more reliable and accurate and less prone to bias than a narrative review. Reviews in particular give a balanced and general perspective of a topic, and are usually easier to understand....
Health technology assessments or HTA s are the gold standard when it comes to assessing evidence quality. Respect the levels of evidence: Do not reject a high-quality type of study (e.g., a meta-analysis) in favor of a source from lower levels of evidence (e.g., any primary source) because of personal objections to the inclusion criteria, references, funding. Synthesis of published material advancing a position is original research, and Wikipedia is not a venue for open research. Verified, online, aysegüll (24) Göteborg, no reviews 9, verified, online, fekir (28) Göteborg, no reviews 0, verified, online, célèste (19) Göteborg 4 review. Public Understanding of Science. If recent reviews do not mention an older primary source, the older source is dubious. It is normally best to use reviews and meta-analyses where possible. They take into account various aspects such as effect, risks, economic costs, and ethical concerns of a treatment.
Undergraduate or graduate level textbooks, edited scientific books, lay scientific books, and encyclopedias are examples of tertiary sources. 29 However, note that merely being published in a supplement is not prima facie evidence of being published in a sponsored supplement. Health News Review's criteria for rating news stories 35 can help to get a general idea of the quality of a medical news article. "Evidence-Based Decision Making: Introduction and Formulating Good Clinical Questions Continuing Education Course m Course Pages m". Guidelines do not always correspond to best evidence, but instead of omitting them, reference the scientific literature and explain how it may differ from the guidelines. Naik, Gutnam (December 2, 2011). The classification scheme includes about 70 types of documents. 19 To access the full text, the editor may need to visit a medical library or ask someone at the WikiProject Resource Exchange or WikiProject Medicine's talk page to either provide an electronic copy or read the source.
Drug discovery scientists at Bayer in 2011 reported that they were able to replicate results in only 20 to 25 of the prominent studies they examined; 5 scientists from Amgen followed with a publication in 2012 showing. Primary publications describe novel research for the first time, while review articles summarize and integrate a topic of research into an overall view. It arises in part due to financial interests that compete within medicine. Personal conflicts of interest edit Further information: Wikipedia:Conflicts of interest (medicine) People most interested in improving an article may have a connection to its subject. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials can provide strong evidence of the clinical efficacy of particular treatments in given scenarios, which may in turn be incorporated into medical guidelines or institutional position papers (ideal sources for clinical recommendations).
Controversies or uncertainties in medicine should be supported by reliable secondary sources describing the varying viewpoints. Sources for evaluating health-care media coverage include the review websites Behind the Headlines or Health News Review along with specialized academic journals, such as the Journal of Health Communication ; reviews can also appear in the American Journal of Public. "Assessing evidence quality" means editors should determine quality of the type of source and quality of the publication. "Irreproducible experimental results: causes, (mis)interpretations, and consequences". Sponsored supplements edit See also: WP:sponsored Symposia and supplements to academic journals are often (but far from always) unacceptable sources. Other sources edit Reliable sources must be strong enough to support the claim. The best evidence for treatment efficacy is mainly from meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
"Potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open-access publishers". Text that relies on primary sources should usually have minimal undue weight, only be used to describe conclusions made by the source, and must describe these findings clearly so that all editors even those without specialist knowledge can check sources. Retrieved 17 November 2012. Further reading edit Greenhalgh T (2006). A b Rochon, PA; Gurwitz, JH; Cheung, CM; Hayes, JA; Chalmers,. The Greenhalgh citation in References is taken from an earlier version of this book, which was serialized in BMJ. Journal articles come in many different types, and are a mixture of primary and secondary sources. However, books published by university presses or the National Academy of Sciences, tend to be well-researched and useful for most purposes.
Even in reputable medical journals, different papers are not treated as of equal value. Some systematic reviews also include a statistical meta-analysis to combine the results of several clinical trials to provide stronger quantitative evidence about how well a treatment works for a particular purpose. Primary sources should never be cited in support of a conclusion that is not clearly made by the authors ( see WP:Synthesis ). There are exceptions to these rules of thumb: History sections often cite older work Cochrane Library reviews are generally of high quality and are routinely maintained even if their initial publication dates fall outside the 5-year window. Determining weight of studies generally requires reliable secondary sources (not press releases or newspaper articles based on such sources).
Privat massasje oslo selda ekiz naken
Speculative proposals and early-stage research should not be cited to imply wide acceptance. Note that journals that have changed names or ceased publication will not be "currently" indexed on medline, but their indexing status, when they were being published, can be viewed under other headings on that same page. A red flag that a journal article is probably not reliable for biomedical claims might be publication by a publisher that has a reputation for exhibiting " predatory " behavior, which includes questionable business practices and/or peer-review processes that. Predatory journals edit An integral part of finding high-quality sources is avoiding articles from journals without a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Bobick JE, Berard. Where in vitro and animal-model data are cited on Wikipedia, it should be clear to the reader that the data are pre-clinical, and the article text should avoid stating or implying that reported findings hold true in humans. Even when an article is one of the most useful types and recently published, it can be helpful to check the journal on doaj and other databases as well as the status and publishing track of authors if they make extraordinary claims. Finally, make readers aware of controversies that are stated in reliable sources.
The "Limits" tab can further limit the search, for example, to meta-analyses, to freely readable sources, and/or "core clinical journals". If a textbook is intended for students, it may not be as thorough as a monograph or chapter in a textbook intended for professionals or postgraduates. A well-referenced article will point to specific journal articles or specific theories proposed by specific researchers. 33 Articles in newspapers and popular magazines generally lack the context to judge experimental results. "The quality of the evidence for dietary advice given in UK national newspapers". Please see Popular press below. "suny Downstate EBM Tutorial". Verified, online, priyadharsani (22) Göteborg 5 review 14, verified, online. "Abridged Index Medicus (AIM or "Core Clinical Journal Titles".
If conclusions are worth mentioning (such as large randomized clinical trials with surprising results they should be described appropriately as from a single study: "A large, NIH-funded study published in 2010 found that selenium and Vitamin E supplements, separately. Sourcing for all other types of content including non-medical information in medicine-articles is covered by the general guideline on identifying reliable sources. Although PubMed is a comprehensive database, many of its indexed journals restrict online access. Narrative reviews often set out to provide a general summary of a topic based on a survey of the literature, which can be useful when outlining a topic. Young JM, Solomon MJ (February 2009). "Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research". Templates edit See also edit References edit Laurent MR, Vickers TJ (2009).
However, in vitro and animal-model findings do not translate consistently into clinical effects in human beings. Li G, Abbade LP, Nwosu I, Jin Y, Leenus A, Maaz M, Wang M, Bhatt M, Zielinski L, Sanger N, Bantoto B, Luo C, Shams I, Shahid H, Chang Y, Sun G, Mbuagbaw L, Samaan Z, Levine MA, Adachi JD, Thabane L (December 2017). Straus SE, Richardson WS, Glasziou P, Haynes RB (2005). How to Read a Paper: The Basics of Evidence-based Medicine (3rd.). No reviews 0, verified, online, annatilde (19) Göteborg 7 review 0, verified, online, fanar (26) Göteborg, no reviews 2, verified, online, gafran (35) Göteborg, no reviews 0, verified, online, atié (21) Göteborg 16 review 0 Verified online Karin.
"A practical guide to assigning levels of evidence". Claims of bias should be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and are not reason to omit sources without consensus instead, qualify sources with information of why a source may be biased, and who is calling it biased. Greenhalgh T (July 1997). A source can also simply be bad, where biases in criteria make it less than ideal. If material can be supported by either primary or secondary sources the secondary sources should be used. Popular press edit The popular press is generally not a reliable source for scientific and medical information in articles. Using secondary sources then allows facts to be stated with greater reliability: "Neither vitamin E nor selenium decreases the risk of prostate cancer and vitamin E may increase." (citing pmid ) If no reviews on the subject. Archived from the original.
Assess evidence quality edit When writing about treatment efficacy, knowledge about the quality of the evidence helps distinguish between minor and major views, determine due weight, and identify accepted evidence-based information. April 24 2013 Announcement: Reducing our irreproducibility Wright JG (May 2007). Searching for sources edit Search engines are commonly used to find biomedical sources. Medical textbooks published by academic publishers are often excellent secondary sources. E.g., the article Genetics could mention Darwin's 1859 book On the Origin of Species as part of a discussion supported by recent reviews.
Eskorter oslo norske damer sexHill DR, Stickell H, Crow SJ (2003). "A systematic examination of the citation of prior research in reports of randomized, controlled trials". The Abridged Index Medicus provides a list of 114 selected "core clinical journals" (this subset of the medical literature can be searched in PubMed using a 'journal categories' filter). The range of reviews you examine should be wide enough to catch at least one full review cycle, containing newer reviews written and published in the light of older ones and of more-recent primary studies. Remember to avoid WP:original research by only using the best possible sources, and avoid weasel words and phrases by tying together separate statements with "however "this is not supported by etc. Woloshin S, Schwartz LM, Casella SL, Kennedy AT, Larson RJ (May 2009). Carl Straumsheim No More 'Beall's List', archived from the original on Nestle, Marion. Cite journal requires journal ( help ) Beall, Jeffrey. Newspapers and magazines may also publish articles about scientific results before those results have been published in a peer-reviewed journal or reproduced by other experimenters.
Porno sex film gay escort oslo
|Erotisk novelle homo tantra massage oslo||196|
|Eskorte i bergen trekant porno||702|
|Eskortetjeneste oslo thai girls||375|
|Norske jenter porno norske sex sider||384|
Erfaring med trekant escorte massasje oslo"A scoping review of comparisons between abstracts and full reports in primary biomedical research". 37 There are basic and advanced options for searching PubMed. Doody's maintains a list of core health sciences books, which is available only to subscribers. They examined the patients, injected the rats, ran the experiments, or at least supervised those who did. Ideal sources for biomedical information include: review articles (especially systematic reviews ) published in reputable medical journals ; academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and from respected publishers; and guidelines or position statements from national or international expert bodies.
They tend to overemphasize the certainty of any result, for instance, presenting a new and experimental treatment as "the cure" for a disease or an every-day substance as "the cause" of a disease. 1 (dead link) For medical information, the most useful types of articles are typically labeled "Guideline "Meta-analysis "Practice guideline or "Review". Per the policies of neutral point of view, no original research, and verifiability, Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, independent, published secondary or tertiary sources. 27 A new list maintained by an anonymous consortium can be found at m/journals/. Vitamin D cancer: How can two news releases about the same study be polar opposites? Guidelines by major medical and scientific organizations sometimes clash with one another (for example, the World Health Organization and American Heart Association on salt intake which should be resolved in accordance with WP:weight.
16 Such articles do not share the reliability of their parent journal. Their name is somewhat of a misnomer as they do not need to concern "technology" as perceived by the public but rather any intervention intended to improve health. "Evaluating the quality of articles published in journal supplements compared with the quality of those published in the parent journal". They may lack independent editorial oversight and peer review, with no supervision of content by the parent journal. Some high-quality journals, such as jama, publish a few freely readable articles even though most are not free. Bias edit Bias caused by conflicts of interest is an important issue in medical research. 36 Consequently, they are usually poor sources and should always be used with caution, never used to support surprising claims, and carefully identified in the text as preliminary work.
One possibility is to cite a higher-quality source along with a more-accessible popular source, for example, with the laysummary parameter of cite journal. Don't just cite the abstract edit When searching for biomedical sources, it is wise to skim-read everything available, including abstracts of papers that are not freely readable, and use that to get a feel for what reliable sources are saying. Determining the reliability of any individual journal article may also take into account whether the article has garnered significant positive citations in sources of undisputed reliability, suggesting wider acceptance in the medical literature despite any red flags suggested here. According to the conflict of interest policy conflicts of interest (COI) must be disclosed. Use your best judgement when writing about topics where you may have a conflict of interest: citing yourself on Wikipedia is problematic. This guideline is not general in nature, but specifically concerns quality when used as a source for encyclopedic articles on Wikipedia. They seldom make recommendations, but instead explain most effective treatments, potential hazards and discuss gaps in knowledge. National Academies (including the National Academy of Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences the British National Health Service, the.S. An evaluation of 500 stories". Most medical news articles fail to discuss important issues such as evidence quality, 31 costs, and risks versus benefits, 32 and news articles too often convey wrong or misleading information about health care.