Knowledge talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)

3565:(a Russian-led, much-criticised sport organisation) because (they claimed) she has XY chromosomes. She waived her appeal against that decision and never released a medical test showing that she has XX chromosomes. In 2024 the International Olympic Committee took the athletes' passports at face value and did not carry out gender testing. So some sports journalists and commentators took it for granted that Khelif has XY chromosomes. Some sources have reported either that she is intersex (Italian press) or that she may be intersex (BBC, New York Times - all major English-speaking NEWSORGs). Even if that were the case, it doesn't mean that she went through male puberty and had a competitive advantage at the Olympics: certain forms of 4181:

Elsewhere we have seen what I would regard as opinion pieces but not always labelled as such, because they are more some kind of intellectual academic thought piece. Again, there's a misconception that the author's thoughts are thus held to be factual rather than "Hmm, that's an interesting and coherent argument you made". Understanding these different kinds of academic works, and their limitations, is outside of my education. I don't know who might know better. But I think it might be useful if wiki had some kind of guideline on the different sorts of academic works, and what peer review means for each of them, to help people know what is "appropriate". --

3239:). So, if I'm not mistaken, there's nothing to stop a local consensus being reached that diagnoses in a particular BLP (because it's particularly controversial, because the diagnosis is difficult, because news organisations don't seem reliable enough...) require MEDRS-level sources. But in general there seems to be no doubt that MEDRS does not apply to individual diagnoses: the medical conditions of a living person can be covered with the usual WP:RS and the usual policies and guidelines, including WP:WIKIVOICE and WP:INTEXT (if the diagnosis is controversial or just "rumours" or "accusations"). 3535:) we have some pundits, some of whom happen to have degrees in adjacent areas and one or two that are subject matter experts, either engaging in commentary (in sources) which are presumptive or speculative about the subjects medical conditions when it would be unethical for them to discuss a patient diagnosis when they are not the treating doctor or illegal if they are. Editors, such as the one who started this discussion, have tried to push the comments of those pundits as evidence that there is reasonable discussion about the subject's diagnosis and not a whole bunch of misinformation. 401: 3890:

report said she was totally blind as a result of brain damage.) So I think you also want some judgement call about credibility. Someone looking to score political points is less credible than someone who isn't. Someone with relevant expertise is more credible than ordinary people. Someone with more information is more credible than someone less information. Someone whose voice was elevated by a high-quality publisher/source is more credible than someone whose claim only got published because a junky source thought it'd drive traffic.

3062:

to general biomedical knowledge. To include content about a diagnosis in a BLP, we need sufficient coverage from generally reliable sources to ensure due weight, but MEDRS-level sources aren't strictly necessary; 2) Or, "Given the contentious and complex nature of this topic, we should require MEDRS-level sources - the usual NEWSORGs are not sufficient". This would be a suggestion, not a policy requirement; it may gain consensus on the talk page, but doesn't reflect the standard use of MEDRS.

2428:

guidelines and textbooks. Our model, of relying on existing publications and a crude grading system for those publications, isn't perfect. It is too easy to find oneself reading a journal by a bad publisher. As you point out, it is possible that some apparent authorities are merely fronts for vested interests. But this surely also malignly affects medicine as a whole, so is something the real world needs to fix for itself, rather than us hope we can work around the problem. --

2214:"As you prepare your manuscript for submission to another specialty journal, you may be able to improve it by following one or more of the EQUATOR Guidelines's checklists (https://www.equator-network.org). Mendelian randomization studies must adhere to the best practice as described in the following guideline https://wellcomeopenresearch.org/articles/4-186/v3 and be accompanied to MR-STROBE checklist (https://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/strobe-mr-statement/)." 1884: 1866: 2900:? These subjects are notable and the content is potentially contentious. It would be impossible to write these articles if MEDRS-compliant sources were required. This suggests that WP:MEDRS does not apply to diagnoses of individuals, but only to content that presupposes or explicates biomedical knowledge. It seems that the purpose of WP:MEDRS is not to protect the privacy of living persons, but to ensure that reporting on biomedical topics reflects scientific consensus. 1959: 1934: 2023: 2005: 1753: 2079: 3158:). "She was accused of..." is not the same as "She had..." We don't need a medical journal to say that some athletes get accused of having the "wrong" type of body, or that the accusations, even if completely unfounded, can lead to real-world consequences for the accused athlete. In such cases, the article content should focus on the fact that the accusations historically happened, without implying that the accusations are medically true. 443: 251: 2764:

enduring significance to public life of the individual concerned. In such a context, I'm finding it hard to see how a non-medical source could be used for sourcing in very many circumstances, beyond possibly the subject themselves stating that they had been diagnosed with something. Knowledge certainly shouldn't be republishing tabloid speculation without good cause, even if framed in text attributing it to said tabloid sources.

891:- This book contains information on the NLM Catalog, a database which provides access to NLM bibliographic data for journals, books, audiovisuals, computer software, electronic resources, and other materials via the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) Entrez retrieval system. The NLM Catalog includes links to full text materials and the library's holdings in LocatorPlus, NLM's online public access catalog. 366: 649:

such as reporting a study result as a conclusive "discovery" before it has been peer-reviewed or tested by other scientists. They may also exaggerate its significance; 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. The sensationalism affects both which stories they choose to cover and the content of their coverage.

1802: 1784: 4553:

drug from Big Pharma to be notable on the grounds that it's in the business news, but we still have to describe what it is, and that's (a) often going to be based on primary sources and (b) always going to be based on sources connected to the drug developer/manufacturer. Independent researchers can't get their hands on experimental drugs to run totally independent tests. We manage with the whole of

4407:

story. And for an encyclopaedic POV, it is awful because the deluge of stories is based around editorial policy/position rather than what the current best sources say. We are at the mercy of whether some newspaper editor wants to run with the Evil Nurse angle or the Miscarriage of Justice / Cover Up angle. Which angle sells more papers or suits our political agenda? -- 14:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

2256:

significant illness, their view has very little to do with science and quite a lot to do with their emotional state. Some people with "random bad luck" diseases blame themselves, when that is absolutely not warranted; some people blame others when it was their own fault; some people blame irrelevant body systems. Fervent belief that something is (or isn't) a biological illness does not make it so.

1812: 281: 3132:. Nothing here remotely resembles a "proper diagnosis", which in the case of the Press sisters was never made. At best, we should write something like "The Press sisters retired in 1966, coinciding with the introduction of required gender verification in track & field. This led to widespread, yet never proven, rumors regarding the Presses' genders" (from the last cited source). 570:

source may produce a different result to what multiple other primary sources suggest, even if it is a high-quality clinical trial. Secondary sources serve two purposes: they combine the results of all relevant primary sources and they filter out primary sources that are unreliable. Secondary sources are not infallible, but they have less room for error than a primary source.

1156:(DOI) assigned to them. All articles included in PubMed are assigned an eight-digit PubMed identifier (PMID). These identifiers can be used to refer to articles, which is preferred to URLs as it makes a reliable link which is resilient to changes beyond our control – i.e. the publisher being acquired by another publisher and it's "normal" web URLs changing as a consequence. 3573:(which would give her a competitive advantage) based on observations such as visual evidence of high levels of testosterone and the like. On the Imane Khelif talk page, there was a broad consensus (myself included) that she should not be described as intersex, not even hypothetically or with attribution ("some have argued that ... she may be"). The point of contention in 2550:, the most important thing to do is to use the best sources that you can. Most of MEDRS is directed towards questions about whether a particular medication is safe and effective for a particular condition, and is not relevant to content about whether people in a small profession have shorter lifespans. There is relatively little formal research available. 4107:

their expertise. So some Oxford University Press history book could well diagnose an illness or cause of death and I actually think historians would be more professionally motivated to get their history right vs some random consultant neurologist attempting an entertaining introduction to their latest review. --

4150:

work, and that would be just fine as long as the analysis is self consistent. It seems to me that using it to say something about the real world is as much a conceptual error as using an academic theology paper about some Hindu script's story about a god, is evidence that this god does or does not exist. --

2234:

inherent bad science (not new data). And academic books do not necessarily represent proper science (e.g. often occuring in psychosomatic literature). A book can be more easily published compared to an article in a serious journal. Yet, the guideline would favour a random academic book over a Nature article.

4406:

Per Bon courage, yes it has got something against citing the news or keeping the articles up to date. It has multiple statements to the effect of "Knowledge doesn't want everything you read about in the news" in it. But as Bon courage notes, editor enthusiasm is hard to contain while it is an ongoing

3889:

article? I remember a physician-turned-politician saying that he was convinced she was conscious on the basis of a very brief video clip. It turned out that the video clip was carefully chosen because if you saw those few seconds alone, she looked like she was watching a balloon move. (The autopsy

3516:

My assumption was it would be sourced. I have no interest in this particular case (and have not followed it) but, hypothetically, if Doctor Dave says something about biomedical about Athlete Alice (or Paul Politician, or Celebrity Caleb) along the lines of "I can see from observation X that they have

3061:

Yes, I understand. Let me expand on what you've said. In a talk page discussion, when an editor says "we need WP:MEDRS sources for this statement", this might mean either: 1) "WP:MEDRS applies here". Based on our discussion, this is wrong if the statement is about an individual's diagnosis as opposed

2965:

suggested that if I felt the policy needed clarification (which I do), this should be sought at WT:MEDRS rather than in the unblock request. But this discussion has no direct bearing on my block: even if everyone agreed that WP:MEDRS does not apply to individual diagnoses, my block would still remain

2822:

I agree with all the comments above, but I'd like to understand if there's anything specific to medical diagnoses (e.g. the high level of expertise required to make one) that makes their coverage different from other sensitive areas of a BLP such as, say, sexual orientation. If this is the case, then

2286:

Or that the American Pain Society, this time a non-profit society that nominally advocated on behalf of patients by publishing clinical practice guidelines, actually instead acted on behalf of pharmaceutical companies to propagate a treatment mandate to prescribe more products, in essence acting as a

2237:

This problem is most evident for many Wiki pages where the origin of a disease is not well known. Where you often have a group of psychiatrists asserting a psychosomatic root cause vs a group of biological proponents. In this case, psychiatrists reviewing themselves doesn't give any more credibility,

1135:

for Chrome or Firefox to immediately identify articles with a free version. After you install the extension, look to the right side of the page (when you are on the website for an article) for either a grey locked symbol (no free version) or a green unlocked symbol (click on that symbol to access the

702:

website by an author who is an expert in problems with complementary and alternative medicine. Whenever possible, you should use a scholarly source instead of Quackwatch. However, if no scholarly sources are available, and the subject is still notable, then it might be reasonable to cite Quackwatch

4353:

situation: Just because you can find a source that quotes someone who says ____ is/isn't evidence of guilt/innocence doesn't mean that an encyclopedia article needs to include it. We need more bottom-line summaries ("She was convicted, though some experts have doubts") and less blow-by-blow detail

4145:

Maybe the thing to think about is what would the peer reviewers (and editors and publishers) be concerning themselves with? A neurological paper, outlining the state of understanding of a condition and its treatment, is concerned with whether that is an accurate and comprehensive medical review, not

4106:

I'm not sure there is good evidence that for historical figures, supposedly MEDRS sources are any better than a serious history book. Possibly a serious historian has dug up detailed descriptions of their illness and described them to a medical expert like any scholar might about any fact outside of

3042:

On the Trump RFC outcomes: The community is allowed to set higher rules for an individual article, particularly when repeated discussions are wasting the community's time and wearing on its patience. "Come back when you've got a MEDRS source" is not very different from "One-year moratorium on this

2427:

Knowledge has a unique editing model where anyone can edit but the consequence of this is we agreed to make the selection and summarising of primary research studies into "somebody else's problem". We found alignment with Knowledge's preference for "secondary sources" with readily available reviews,

815:

In other words, is it necessary to say in the article's text the source which supports a medical statement (with attribution)? Or can it simply be stated as an unchallenged fact, with the source only mentioned in the citation (without attribution)? A statement without attribution will come across as

808:

Reports may conflict with each other. For example, a clinical trial may produce no evidence of an effect, but the treatment's manufacturer might produce testimonials claiming a positive effect. You should follow the lead of review articles and other secondary sources for determining how to balance

648:

Secondly, media coverage of medical topics is often sensationalist. They tend to favor new, dramatic or interesting stories over predictable ones, even though studies that reflect the current scientific consensus tend to be predictable results. They tend to overemphasize the certainty of any result,

569:

Primary sources aren't completely banned, but they should only be used in rare situations. An individual primary source may be flawed, such as being a clinical trial that uses too few volunteers. There have been cases where primary sources have been outright fraudulent. Furthermore, a single primary

514:

Different types of sources have different strengths and weaknesses. A type of source that is good for scientific information is not usually as reliable for political information, and vice versa. Since Knowledge's readers may make medical decisions based on information found in our articles, we want

4496:

is a traditional herbal anxiolytic. Our section on its uses is self-contradictory (there's no proof that it works; also, it's a central nervous system depressant ...which means that it works). We cite an 18-year-old Cochrane report that declined to draw any conclusions, and we use that to present

3721:

As for your other comments: the athlete's body has always been a subject of public debate. Ideals of beauty and physique, performance enhancement and doping, gender and sexuality, body image and eating disorders... you name it. It's part and parcel of being a professional athlete, it's not a matter

3368:

Of course it exists. These armchair diagnoses got so much attention in the press during the previous elections that I heard the APA put out a warning to its members about it being unethical to claim you've diagnosed someone who isn't your patient (and illegal to disclose your diagnoses if he is).

2807:

Agreed. MEDRS does not apply to an individual's diagnosis, but BLP/RS does. In the Trump case you quote, there's an "or" as an announced formal diagnosis in a regular RS would be fine. We should generally strive for the best sourcing available, so MEDRS-level sourcing is to be encouraged generally.

2763:

Firstly, to state the obvious, even if WP:MEDRS didn't apply, both WP:RS and WP:BLP would. Which implies that we shouldn't be making statements regarding any diagnosis concerning a living individual without (a) very good sourcing, and (b) a legitimate reason to consider such diagnosis to be of real

2383:

Further, there is simply no blanket ban on primary sources. For instance, there is actually not even a recommendation to refrain from using secondary summaries from within primary sources (i.e. background sections or well chosen parts of discussion sections). One of the problems to allay is keeping

2290:

I think it might be beneficial to re-investigate the ultimate authority of the organizations/publication guidelines we choose to let pass uncritically with more ability afforded to well-informed individuals to make their case that enough primary research exists to effectively include a consensus on

2210:

A number of journals now require (or at least strongly encourage) articles to follow appropriate guidelines including completed checklists (usually as part of Supplemental Material). EQUATOR has guidelines/checklists that cover many types of articles. For example, here is part of my boilerplate for

2162:

Of the 22 studies cited by the meta-analysis, 11 were by the lone author of the paper itself. The meta-analysis "failed to meet any published methodological criteria for systematic reviews" and failed to follow recommendations to avoid statistical dependencies, according to a criticism published in

764:

When fringe claims have been widely reported in the press, have a large popular following, and/or have a long history, it may be appropriate to describe them in terms of that reporting, popularity, or history. However, weight should be determined by MEDRS-compliant sources, and the context (or lack

573:

This follows a principle that guides the whole of Knowledge. If a company announces a notable new product, Knowledge would not cite a press release on the company's website (a primary source) but instead would cite a newspaper article that covers it (a secondary source). The difference with medical

4468:

I agree that many such cases call for application of PARITY. If it's possible, it's almost always preferable not to mention a fringe medical claim, rather than mention it and draw from non-MEDRS sources to counter it. It's not always possible, since non-medical sources have an attraction to fringe

4102:

source is sadly typical of superficially "MEDRS" sources, where a famous name is dropped in the introduction to a more serious article that isn't about them at all. Presumably journal editors/reviewers permit this kind of speculation as "harmless" and don't stop to think "but some Wikipedian might

3995:

that somebody has (or might have) such a condition. Right so; to repeat: For Knowledge to say any living person has a serious medical condition there would need to be a proper diagnosis and (in reality) that private information would need to be made public in a decent, reputable WP:RS. Speculation

3951:

I agree with what others are saying. I'm not sure that whoever said a MEDRS is required for saying an individual has a medical condition has really thought it through. We have other guidelines that deal with speculative, negative information about individuals. We likely have countless biographical

2773:

apply, I'm doubtful that it could in practice. Very few medical diagnoses will involve peer-review etc, or be discussed in systemic reviews. Quite possibly what we need is an amendment (or rather clarification) to 'WP:BLP policy, making it clear that speculation about a living individuals' medical

2127:

from Knowledge predominantly rests on established guidelines. Chief among them is one known by editors as WP:MEDRS. It refers to the referencing of "biomedical" information on Knowledge, stating sources must be "reliable, third-party published secondary sources, and must accurately reflect current

823:

If there have been two recent secondary sources that contradict each other, then you should attribute the disputed findings. On the other hand, if the findings of one or more recent secondary sources are disputed by one or more secondary sources from many years ago, but not by any recent ones, the

4552:

In a lot of cases, the correct answer is just not to mention it. But if the fringe-y subject is also a notable subject, then we've got to say something. My inclination is to do the best we can, just like we have to do the best we can with experimental "scientific" drugs. We may declare a hyped

4149:

A literary analysis would seem to be utterly unconcerned with truth, facts, or indeed the real world, but seeks to view a piece of writing under various conceptual frameworks and thought processes. It seems that two literary analysis papers could produce entirely contradictory conclusions about a

4122:

lists several possible diagnoses. We would presumably accept a med school textbook saying that he might have had Marfan's (or, perhaps more likely, depression), and perhaps a similarly serious work of history would also be appropriate. I think it's worth thinking over, but right now, I'm having

3836:

How can I, a lay person, make such a strong medical claim about a person I've never met, much less examined, and actually don't know anything about except that her name turns up in lists of actresses with naturally red hair and green eyes? It's very simple: Every single human with naturally red

2603:

The second paragraph is where I'd be looking for more medical related sources though. Really anything that says that X results in higher incidence of Y for health issues is something pretty squarely needing medical sourcing. That said, this can be a gray area where you might range from commentary

2496:

Tens of millions of heart surgeries were conducted across the US and Europe during the years from 2009 to 2013 when those misguided guidelines were in place. One provocative analysis from cardiologists Graham Cole and Darrel Francis estimated that there were 800,000 deaths compared to if the best

2388:

prohibiting us from summarizing these (which would be a problem due to evidence grading). This becomes less of a problem upon listing authoritative secondary sources, as they already do summation for us, and readers are likely to want to know what, for instance, both the CDC and WHO think about a

2255:

The difference between a good type of source and a good source is an important but sometimes subtle distinction – similar, you might say, to the difference between discussing science vs repeating claims that I personally believe. I often find that when a person has recently been diagnosed with a

837:

It is common for scientific publications to say something like this, either directly or indirectly. There are several reasons for this. It could be argued that more research is always a bonus, even if the topic has already been thoroughly researched. Sometimes, these statements may be made partly

507:

Yes, but the guidelines for medical information follow the same broad principles as the rest of Knowledge. Examples of this include the requirement for reliable sources and the preference for secondary sources over primary sources. These apply to both medical and non-medical information. However,

3952:

articles that note people got cancer or had epilepsy or died of a stroke that are sourced to newspapers, and those aren't MEDRS. Contentious extraordinary claims require high quality sources. Wrt historical figures, even medical journals can be prone to armchair diagnoses of dubious quality. --

3348:

O God that exists eh? An "ideal" MEDRS source is never going to exist for such material but I do think a MEDRS source of some sort is needed for diagnosis of a medical condition in a BLP, a source sufficient to support the weight of the claim made. I suspect the real issue here is AP2/GENSEX and

2423:

Coming back to the original question about our favoured MEDORG guidelines having a malign influence behind them. Consider then if we let editors build our medical articles much like someone might write their own review from the primary research studies. That same malign influence would appear on

4270:

Another area where this sort of question comes up is around Lucy Letby, the nurse who was twice found guilty of murder/attempted murder. There has been considerable media discussion about the safety of those convictions, often revolving around expert issues of medicine and statistics. How do we

4180:

That's probably too vague a word to be useful. I think the problem we had with that literary analysis was that even non-literary-analysis claims (like factual claims, some of which were inaccurate) were held to be true because it was published in a scientific journal and had been peer reviewed.

3840:

We wouldn't want to put this in an article about her (unless, e.g., she announced that she had skin cancer, or got involved in skin cancer prevention advertisements), but that's because it'd be UNDUE, not because it's untrue. But this is such a lightweight claim that any barely passable source

2233:

It puts too much emphasis and trust in academic books & reviews, neglecting that these need careful scrutiny as well. It's not rare in the medical field to find reviews where authors review themselves (or collaborating academic colleagues). There are Cochrane reviews that got redrawn due to

804:

In the first case, we cannot say that it does not work, but we can say that there is no evidence to determine whether it works. After multiple, high-quality independent studies have been published, the understanding may transition from "no evidence" to "some evidence" of either an effect or no

545:

and not to articles: biomedical statements in non-medical articles need to comply with MEDRS, while non-medical statements in medical articles do not need to follow MEDRS. Also like BLP, the spirit of MEDRS is to err on the side of caution when making biomedical statements. Content about human

3311:

Yes, I think that the point is whether WP:MEDRS prevents these editors from making this case, or whether it's just a normal dispute about WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT. Do they need Dave the Doctor to have published his theories in a reputable medical journal, or is it enough that Dave's views have been

2555:

You might consider whether some of the sources used in that section are out of date. For example, the sentence about body fat percentage is cited to a 30-year-old book, so it might not have up-to-date statistics. (20% body fat is probably an appropriate obesity cutoff for East Asian people.)

2419:

Lots of people worked on the early drafts of MEDRS. My significant part was realising the medical project's guideline, which was becoming MEDMOS, needed the RS stuff pulled out of it into a new page. But the key battles we had then were editors who thought they knew better than these secondary

838:

because authors need to convince readers that the topic is important in order to secure future funding sources. As such, saying this does not communicate much information, and it may also mislead readers into thinking that the existing information on a topic is less reliable than it really is.

4069:

For that second category, I'd expect "some MEDRS chops" to be generally on the lower side (perhaps a peer-reviewed primary source), and I think we need to use sensible judgment, so that things that are more common and obvious don't require much, but wild speculation requires stronger sources.

4440:

medical treatments that are so out-there or obscure that no peer-reviewed coverage of them exists; editors will occasionally then argue that we cannot say that there is no proof of their effectiveness (or that we cannot otherwise describe them as fringe in ways that might touch on biomedical

3893:

And then sometimes we have to throw this all away and say: So much has been written about speculations on Donald Trump's mental and physical health that the speculation should be covered one way or the other. The question there is not whether the speculation is true (e.g., "Is he really a

1102:

in contravention of Knowledge's policy. In general if you find such a copy and it is not accompanied by text explicitly stating that it is made available with the permission of the copyright holder, assume that it is potentially infringing, and do not link to it. This holds for all edits in

2282:

Did you know, for example, the American Psychological Association, known for such works as the DSM-V and numerous textbooks likely to pass as verified work through here without a second thought, is actually a trade organization with the express intent of lobbying on behalf of practicing

1066:. (Note that immediately above "Search Results" on that page, you can change the default "20 per page" to as many as 200 results per page, and you can change how the results are "sorted", e.g., if you are looking for a specific journal, you can sort by Title, instead of the default.) 1051:. (Note that immediately above "Search Results" on that page, you can change the default "20 per page" to as many as 200 results per page, and you can change how the results are "sorted", e.g., if you are looking for a specific journal, you can sort by Title, instead of the default.) 4031:

And (perhaps? are we agreed?) multiple decent sources (e.g., news and magazines) to say that Chris Celebrity has been the subject of speculation about health conditions, but these should not say that the speculations are either true or definitely false. See, e.g., basically all of

3577:

is whether to include in the lead that she's been the subject of public debate about her eligibility to compete with women (and also about the soundness of the IOC policy of "stick to the passport, no testing"). In the context of that discussion, I was partially blocked for making

3881:

Self-disclosure should be another. People do sometimes lie about their health, and misdiagnoses happen, so a press release saying that Chris Celebrity can't eat gluten should never be taken as the final word, but generally you assume that a qualified healthcare professional was

819:

A result or statement from a reliable secondary source should be included without attribution if it is not disputed by any other recent secondary sources. You should do a search to check that the secondary source you are citing is the most up-to-date assessment of the topic.

1382:

Li J, et al The quality of reports of randomized clinical trials on traditional Chinese medicine treatments: a systematic review of articles indexed in the China National Knowledge Infrastructure database from 2005 to 2012. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2014 Sep 26;14:362.

3826:

hypothetically, if Doctor Dave says something about biomedical about Athlete Alice (or Paul Politician, or Celebrity Caleb) along the lines of "I can see from observation X that they have condition Y" I don't think that's okay to relay that if it just comes from a lay

2597:

is a primary source and looks to be a short communication rather than a full research article. I checked Web of Science, and it only has 5 citations, but one of them is a review that may be worth using where it mentions sumo, especially in the context of the previous

4294:

Well I'm not going there, but I'd have thought Knowledge should stick to a summary: i.e. that's she's been convicted but doubts have been raised about the safety of that conviction, without going into the weeds about breathing tubes, statistical analysis and so on.

2379:

I think something needs to be said of primary sources often also overwhelming both the average reader or editor, owing to both their sheer number, and the fact that even many well-intentioned editors are not deeply knowledgeable about all issues they write about.

784:, medical statements are often derived from an underlying belief system, which will include many propositions that are not subject to MEDRS. These propositions are subject to the usual sourcing requirements and the usual requirements for determining fringe status. 645:, which as explained above makes those articles generally unsuitable for medical information. These articles also tend to omit important information about the study. If a medical primary source is to be cited at all, the academic paper should be cited directly. 3845:(Why did I pick that as an example? Because a few years back, the California legislature has decided that students should not be exposed to their own genetic information as part of a class, and a professor gave that as an example of an unintended consequence.) 3019:

Do you just want to provide "further context" or do you also have an opinion on the topic of this thread? I remember you arguing that we need MEDRS-level sources to include a diagnosis in a BLP if it belongs to the GENSEX topic area (or something like that).

844:

As noted above, Quackwatch does not meet the usual standard as a reliable source, but it can be used (with attribution) for information on a topic of alternative and complementary medicine if there are no scholarly sources available for the same purpose. The

2774:

status does not belong in articles except in very exceptional circumstances, and that repeating poorly-sourced 'diagnoses' is an unacceptable breach of the requirement to respect the privacy of individuals etc, regardless of how it is attributed or framed.

2291:

matters of pathology and lines of inquiry related to potential treatment paradigms. We do ourselves a disservice when we shut out promising potential, and similarly to our readers too when academic literature acts more like a thicket than it does pathway.

3080:

I think there's a danger of over-thinking this. For Knowledge to say any living person has a serious medical condition there would need to be a proper diagnosis and (in reality) that private information would need to be made public in a decent, reputable

2195:

for non-randomized studies; the most relevant checklist for the subject matter could be agreed upon by the reviewers and the editor) and the results published alongside the article. It might make it easier to discover junk science before publication.

4054:

Yeah something like that. In the second case obviously a strong MEDRS isn't needed to say (e.g.) somebody 'sounded hoarse' while singing; but to say their gait was characteristic of a neurological condition would need something with some MEDRS chops.

3604:, sourcing and behaviour needs to be impeccable or sanctions will likely follow. Personally speculating on a Talk page about somebody's medical condition(s) is really irrelevant to this discussion and not anything WP:MED or MEDRS can influence. FAFO. 638:, sometimes with significant caveats. It also includes media outlets which are discouraged in all cases because the quality of their journalism is inadequate. However, even high-quality media outlets have disadvantages in the context of medicine. 3672:

e) the point of the RFC is to insert language into the article which paints the picture that there has been legitimate concerns, when there has not. Legitimate concerns are based of reliable evidence/facts and there is an abundant lack of those.

2710: 3380:

A published presidential exam would be a primary source, which is not the MEDRS ideal. Based on the media kerfuffle around one of Trump's published reports allegedly having been written by his (political) staff, we should probably insist upon

2392:

This guideline already discusses pitfalls of relying on industry and industry-funded sources, and I would not object to a well-thought out extension on issues of industry influence on practice guidelines or biases in professional associations.

3296:

I'm not familiar with the backstory here but isn't the problem from the other direction – that is with editors wanting to say that Dave the Doctor has said Paul Politician obviously has dementia or that Alice the Athlete is a man, actually?

2278:

The express reason given is essentially a re-hash of the "reproducibility crisis," but I have to say, should we even be trusting these "fact-checking"-like organizations for whom we essentially defer the power of keeping out bad knowledge?

853:: if a notable fringe theory is primarily described by self-published sources, then verifiable and reliable criticism of the fringe theory does not need to be published in a peer-reviewed journal. It only needs to come from a better source. 3849:

I don't think that all medical claims need the same level of sourcing. Sometimes a person's appearance alone is sufficient; often it's not. And some conditions are more stigmatized, which, as you indicated, has BLP and DUE implications.

2490:

a new meta-analysis was published in 2014, evaluating whether to use beta blockers before cardiac surgery. It found that a course of beta blockers made it 27 percent more likely that someone would die within 30 days of their heart

3618:

Fair enough. This thread, however, is significant if the issue comes up again in talk page discussions, as it's likely to happen. In my view, there is a clear consensus that WP:MEDRS does not apply to individual diagnoses (as per

652:

High-quality media outlets can be good sources of non-medical information in an article about a medical topic. Another acceptable use is using a popular press article to give a plain English summary of an academic paper (use the

2328: 1401:"Some countries publish unusually high proportions of positive results. Publication bias is a possible explanation. Researchers undertaking systematic reviews should consider carefully how to manage data from these countries." 872:

Tutorial videos from the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), part of the U.S. National Library of Medicine. Includes presentations and tutorials about NCBI biomolecular and biomedical literature databases and

735:, which are generally accepted as authoritative in their fields, NCCAM has been the focus of significant criticism from within the scientific community. Whenever possible, you should cite the established literature directly. 3443:

You need a MEDRS-quality source to say, e.g., that human sexual differentiation exists on a spectrum rather than a binary, and therefore at some level we are all intersex. You do not need a MEDRS-quality source to say that

3099:

I think that if there is a consensus on this approach, then we should write it down somewhere in unambiguous terms, because I keep coming across BLPs that do not follow it. From the article about a recently deceased woman,

3353:

which delightfully has "No signs of cognitive decline or dementia were noted.". It seems to be attempting to source stuff to the Whitehouse's published presidential physical exam, which would be some sort of MEDRS, FWIW?

2823:

perhaps a few lines could be added to either WP:MEDRS or WP:BLP to make it clear. Otherwise, the usual WP:BLP + RS apply, including WP:BLPGOSSIP, and if multiple news organisations report, for instance, that according to

612:, uncommon procedure, etc., for which no high-quality secondary literature is available, or for which the available secondary sources do not cover all of the information normally included in an encyclopedia article. 322: 2718: 2604:

from coaches to those trained in sports medicine. At a glance I can't really assess the sources used there, but it's probably worth searching for more up to date sourcing while looking for medical sources there.

2497:

practices had been established five years sooner. While that exact number is hotly contested, a 27 percent increase in mortality for a common procedure for years on end can add up to an extraordinary death toll.

2246: 3668:

d) any expert who isn't her doctor speculating about medical diagnosis is engaging in unethical behaviour. They can't claim high levels of testosterone when they are not her doctor and there are is no reliable

2713:); however, this was a brief discussion with few comments and no formal closure. The issue was also raised on the Julian Assange talk page, and different views on the relevance of WP:MEDRS were expressed (see 1579:"NCCAM funds proposals of dubious merit; its research agenda is shaped more by politics than by science; and it is structured by its charter in a manner that precludes an independent review of its performance" 618:

when describing major research that has made a significant impact (i.e., continued and substantial coverage). While recent research results are normally omitted, it is sometimes necessary to include them for

4453:, we don't need highest-quality sources to broadly dismiss it. I propose adding a note about PARITY to MEDRS somewhere, along with perhaps a bit of loose guidance for how such coverage should be handled. -- 2788:

Yup, and I think common sense applies. The yardstick is whether or not the statement implies anything about biomedicine. Saying Taylor Swift had a cold (say) does not; saying a celebrity was diagnosed with

3758:

I am partially blocked, not topic banned. Anyway, you're right - there's no point in continuing to discuss Khelif here. The issue raised by my original post also seems to have been sufficiently clarified.

2106:

Knowledge shows, however, that extreme circumstances, especially when related to public health, require different, more stringent rules, not better application of existing rules. The stakes are simply too

2722: 2540: 1097:

Note that paywalled articles are frequently pirated and made available on the open web. When linking to a journal article, care must be taken not to link to such a pirate copy, as such a link would be a

4224: 3724:

The onus isn't on her to disprove ... any expert who isn't her doctor speculating about medical diagnosis is engaging in unethical behaviour ... Legitimate concerns are based of reliable evidence/facts

2518: 3878:

I think the decision needs to be multi-factorial. "Obviousness" is one factor (e.g., "He has a bad sunburn"). Part of the difficulty here is that what's obvious to "me" isn't obvious to everyone.

2241:

In the end, as mentioned before, all sources need to be checked for credibility. Unfortunately, this is difficult to do on Knowledge, where scientific "discussion" is not desired on the talk page.

39: 3373:

to exclude it, but impossible to source statements like "He's scientifically proven to have _____". Therefore the contents end up being some variation on "Alice claims he has _____", and editors

3114:

Some have suggested that the Press sisters were male or intersex. Another allegation was that they were being injected with male hormones by the Soviet government in order to make them stronger

4546:

says it depends on the quality of the product. I'm not sure what we should be saying, but I don't think that declaring "FRINGE, so I can use weak sources as long as they say it doesn't work".

3973:

that discusses one individual's personal medical information without citing a single medical journal, reference book, or anything similar. Instead, it relies almost entirely on news stories (

3421:

What has prompted this discussoin is editors, Gitz included, wanting to include material in an article that includes speculation about a medical diagnosis in the absense of reliable evidence.

4166:

A gold-plated scientific source is not appropriate for information about movie ticket sales, and a source that's appropriate for box office success is not appropriate for scientific claims.

3331: 765:

thereof) should not make implications about medical statements that are not supported by such sources. Guidance on the additional considerations relevant to fringe subjects can be found at

316: 4288: 2757: 3703: 2827:

Putin may have Parkinson's, we can do the same. If they report that a public figure may have some medical condition (something that does imply questionable biomedical statements: not

3959: 238: 234: 230: 226: 222: 218: 214: 210: 206: 202: 198: 194: 190: 186: 182: 178: 174: 170: 166: 162: 158: 154: 3780: 2424:

Knowledge as editors cherry picking primary sources. There isn't a mechanism whereby Knowledge might be expected to do better, and a fair amount of evidence that it would do worse.

2704: 150: 146: 142: 138: 134: 130: 126: 122: 118: 2265: 3894:

narcissist?"), but whether the speculation is impactful (e.g., "Did the claim that he's supposedly a narcissist have any effect on whether people are likely to vote for him?").

2397:(part of this guideline, which I worked extensively on) points to industry guidelines or guidelines from patient advocacy groups being considered below the threshold of MEDRS. 2420:

sources or who thought journalists on their favourite paper did better. Citing the secondary literature was something academics are taught to avoid so it didn't come naturally.

2182: 2300: 2359:

plus, of course, all the problems with the reproducibility crisis and the general difficulty of figuring out which primary source to 'believe in', if the data is conflicting.

2140: 3714:, "Both athletes were afforded the chance to appeal the DQs to the Swiss-based Court of Appeal. Lin did not. Khelif did but then opted last July not to pursue the matter"; 4146:

whether the introduction correctly identifies some long dead historical figure. Whereas presumably a university press history book is concerned with getting history right.

3991:

I don't think anybody's arguing (are they?) that MEDRS is needed to relay the knowledge that somebody has a medical condition. What's at stake is the sourcing required to

2441: 2324: 4469:

claims. In principal, I'd support some PARITY guidance here, perhaps with a recommendation to start a discussion at this talk page or FTN if unsure about best practices.

3711: 400: 242: 2250: 4164:

Use sources that directly support the material presented in an article and are appropriate to the claims made. The appropriateness of any source depends on the context.

1535:"The criticism repeatedly aimed at NCCAM seems justified, as far as their RCTs of chiropractic is concerned. It seems questionable whether such research is worthwhile." 2242: 641:

Firstly, news articles on medicine will frequently be reporting a new medical primary source, such as the results of a new study. This means that they are effectively

4349:

NOTNEWS is opposed to Knowledge creating original news reports. It's got nothing against citing the news or keeping articles up to date. I think this is more of a

2413: 2344:

editors using obviously bad primary sources (e.g., the patent claiming that colloidal silver cures HIV, but it didn't test whether people had HIV in the first place)

1965: 1939: 3965:

We have a lot of articles that cite newspapers or obits to say "Alice died at the age of 67 from cancer", which are entirely acceptable and not MEDRS' ideal. See

2319: 794:

No evidence exists, either became no studies for the treatment have been published, or because the studies published are too small or weak to draw any conclusions.

721: 335: 4574: 3014: 2371: 411: 2583: 2565: 1647: 1552: 754:

A fringe medical claim is one that differs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in the scientific medical community. This is similar to

4482: 1727: 1675: 405: 2979: 2955: 1142:

An article by librarian John Mark Ockerbloom, titled, "Why Pay for What’s Free? Finding Open Access and Public Domain Articles" offers helpful suggestions.

4626: 4497:

the conclusion that "Valerian has not been shown to be helpful" for anxiety. Is valerian's traditional use as an anxiolytic truly FRINGE? I don't know.

3457: 2696: 2674: 1702: 3552: 3517:

condition Y" I don't think that's okay to relay that if it just comes from a lay source, as much for reasons of BLP/NPOV as for weakness of the sourcing.

3438: 3291: 4381: 4363: 4079: 4064: 4049: 4009: 3921: 3903: 3873: 3859: 3489: 3471: 3408: 3394: 3363: 3306: 3196:

Seems like the answer to the question in the title to this section (Does WP:MEDRS apply to medical information about individuals?) is already covered by

3181: 2802: 1692: 515:

to use high-quality sources when writing about biomedical information. Many sources that are acceptable for other types of information under Knowledge's

4246: 2223: 681:. Searches on PUBMED may be narrowed to secondary sources (reviews, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, etc.) so it is a useful tool for source hunting. 4399: 4344: 4326: 4304: 4275:

and input would be welcome. I feel parts of the article spend too much time on discussing individual commentaries by experts that are getting close to

3807: 3739: 3690: 3595: 3526: 3511: 3197: 3033: 2817: 758:. A claim can still be a fringe medical claim even if it has a large following in other areas of public life (such as politics and the popular press). 3343: 3273: 3252: 3230: 3167: 3129: 3075: 3056: 2913: 2887: 2878:?) would look like if the standard was "One unreliable source said it, and a bunch of media companies decided that they wanted some of that traffic". 2783: 2613: 1121:= the number of available versions of that article) at the bottom of a listing. The resulting page might contain PDF or HTML versions of the article. 3650: 3636: 3613: 3325: 3145: 3094: 2273: 1670: 455: 291: 24: 2852: 4631: 4591: 4414: 4354:("Well, Dr. Expert says that discoloration alone isn't proof of air embolism, but Dr. Authority said that discoloration wasn't considered alone"). 4218: 4188: 4175: 4157: 4140: 4114: 3986: 2893: 3772: 3753: 3726:. Your questionable reading of BLP+MEDRS+GENSEX denies and trivialises a significant public debate in sport, preventing its coverage based on RS. 3715: 2655: 2205: 2039: 615:

when mentioning a famous paper or clinical trial that made a recognized substantial impact, as part of a purely historical treatment of a topic.

4462: 3623:), unless they based on or express controversial biomedical theories. If I were not involved, I would venture to close it with this statement. 2728:, implying that WP:MEDRS applies to medical diagnoses. I suspect that this issue has arisen elsewhere (e.g. regarding the athlete Imane Khelif 2512: 824:

recent findings can be stated without attribution. You should also take into account the relative weight secondary sources have. For example,

4131:

concerns me. Perhaps the latter is closer to the concept of using a primary source to debunk a secondary one. I'm still thinking about it.

3557:

I don't want to go into the specifics of the case as this is a general discussion, but some background information might be helpful. In 2023

2892:

I agree that the example from Putin is a bit extreme - we should probably remove that content from the article. But what about articles like

689: 3699: 2551: 4616: 4611: 2435: 4024:

MEDRS-level article to say that, according to people who have never examined them, Chris Celebrity appears to have scaryitis. See, e.g.,

3996:

about a condition, or armchair diagnosis – if ever due – would need to come from a MEDRS source of some sort. I don't think any change of

3574: 2961:

This "context" is irrelevant: the issue is of general interest and does not concern me or my partial block. I opened this thread because

2635: 1086:

Most scholarly journals are behind paywalls. Some options to access these articles include visiting a local university library, visiting

805:

effect. You should follow the lead of review articles and other secondary sources for determining when this threshold has been crossed.

745:

which may be helpful. Alternatively, a more experienced editor may be able to help you find them (or to confirm that they do not exist).

350: 4621: 4033: 4017:

Pretty much any reliable source to say that Chris Celebrity has been diagnosed (e.g., by their own doctor) with scaryitis. See, e.g.,

2897: 2725:), the consensus was "Do not bring up for discussion again until an announced formal diagnosis or WP:MEDRS-level sources are provided" 2475:'s use of apparently fake data in studies that then led to a faulty conclusion that beta blockers were beneficial before heart surgery. 2030: 2010: 1717: 1697: 1665: 1640: 74: 3908:

Yes, there are people who have been 'cured' of cancer but where the diagnosis was questionable in the first place. I don't know about

451: 4478: 3502:

apply there? We shouldn't be drawing conclusions. If RS have drawn conclusions, we report what RS said, subject to normal BLP rules.

2315: 919: 692:(NCBI), or the US government. These organisations support the search engine but lend no particular weight to the content it indexes. 2867:, speculates that a public figure has a medical condition, and this gets repeated by other media companies, then we should probably 2114: 4601: 4596: 4223:

Thanks for the ping to this interesting discussion. I've recently come to analogous thoughts in a very different topic, which was

2191:

I have been wondering recently why peer review doesn't involve putting each article through an evidence-based checklist (e.g., the

1722: 4209:

in the past. Maybe a section on types of articles and what to expect from them would be an appropriate expansion of that page.

3260:

If you run into problems that you can't resolve on your own (POV pushing comes in many guises), then I suggest asking for help at

1403:

Vickers, Andrew (April 1, 1998), "Do certain countries produce only positive results? A systematic review of controlled trials.",

4606: 3350: 1900: 926:

If you know the full or abbreviated name for a journal, and you want to see if it is indexed in MEDLINE, see the instructions at

381: 3659:

a) A reliable sources don't say she waived her appeal. A reliable sources say she couldn't continue due to not having the funds.

2329:

Knowledge:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Avoid over-emphasizing single studies, particularly in vitro or animal studies

563:. The very similar names are easily confused. For most (not all) purposes, the ideal source is a peer-reviewed review article. 3207: 538: 373: 3121: 1169:

On Talk pages, when referring to journal articles, is it good practice to make any link using these types of identifier also:

1633: 80: 4387: 4272: 3085:. Speculation about a condition, or armchair diagnosis – if ever due – would need to come from a MEDRS source of some sort. 2714: 250: 4372:'s "not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Knowledge", but sure this overlaps with a long of other NOTs. 910: 3261: 2729: 2662: 1831: 1712: 377: 2097: 1583:"NCCAM is unable to implement a research agenda that addresses legitimate scientific opportunities or health-care needs" 627:

sources. Later, these primary sources can be replaced or supplemented with citations to high-quality secondary sources.

1891: 1871: 846: 3235:

I had noticed this page, which is indeed quite relevant to this discussion. However, it is only an explanatory essay (

2709:

In a previous discussion on this talk page, some editors concluded that no, WP:MEDRS does not apply to diagnosis (see

2452: 2341:

the one source that says something completely different from all the others (e.g., cigarettes don't cause lung cancer)

3665:

c) Italian sources posting that she is intersex are obviously engaging in disinformation on the basis of nationalism.

684:

It is a common misconception that because a source appears in PubMed it is published by, or has the approval of, the

464: 623:

weight. In this case, it is usually preferable to read and cite the primary scientific literature in preference to

4242: 3718:: "Khelif did take her case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) but then withdrew the appeal". And so on... 2151: 2038:

related articles on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

1685: 552:

I used a peer-reviewed source, but it was reverted, and the editor said I needed to use a review. I did, didn't I?

534: 3569:

don't provide any advantage. However, some (more or less WP:BIASED) "experts" ventured a speculative diagnosis of

3125: 2631: 3562: 3448:

has been accused of having a medical condition that could render her ineligible for competing in women's sports.

2732:). The intersection between BLP and MEDRS has far-reaching implications for content (e.g., should we remove from 1087: 717:. Such sources should be used with caution. The problem also includes issues with the academic system in China. 463:

This page provides additional information about concepts in the page(s) it supplements. This page is not one of

3768: 3735: 3632: 3591: 3321: 3248: 3141: 3071: 3029: 2975: 2909: 2848: 2832: 2753: 1825: 1789: 1707: 20: 4449:

exists for - if no high-quality academic sources touch on a fringe topic at all, then, provided it is plainly

1166:

In article references, the "doi" and "pmid" parameters are preferred to the "url" parameter for such reasons.

546:

biochemistry or about medical research in animals is also subject to MEDRS if it is relevant to human health.

4474: 2836: 2350:

authors spamming their own publications into as many articles as possible (this happens much less often with

2311: 900: 862:

National Library of Medicine (NLM), PubMed, NCBI, & MEDLINE help, tutorials, documentation, & support

732: 685: 468: 265: 69: 1004: 3966: 3349:

editors wanting to advocate positions, which is something this WikiProject cannot fix. I see we also have

2951: 2124: 1764: 714: 4087: 4025: 3477: 1063: 1044: 4554: 4206: 4090:

are "celebrities" and I would hope medical journals would have better things to do than speculate on the

2579: 2536: 927: 905: 634:

The popular press includes many media outlets which are acceptable sources for factual information about

60: 3785:

Three months later, CAS issued a termination order because Khelif could not fund the costs of the matter

3710:, "Khelif did take her case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (Cas), but then withdrew the appeal"; 1526:"the subject of rancorous scientific and political debate over its mission and even continued existence" 3117: 2192: 1280:"How do US journalists cover treatments, tests, products, and procedures? an evaluation of 500 stories" 742: 508:

there are differences in the details of the guidelines, such as which sources are considered reliable.

113: 4231:

published what I would describe as right-wing confabulation about who perpetrates sexual abuse. Hmm.—

2599: 4119: 3462:

But what about that she has all the signs of having that condition, so the diagnosis surely follows?

3279: 3150:

I'm not sure that there is a problem with this (other than the last sentence probably needing to say

2990: 2944: 2590:

Statements about life expectancy are getting into the realm of MEDRS, but the following phrase about

1153: 4314: 4470: 4313:

the current approach being taken! It is 100% in the weeds, lots of "this expert said this", a huge

2858: 2482:

xperts who study scientific misconduct believe that thousands of people may be dead because of him.

2384:

Knowledge from reading: xx et al. found 80% mortality, while xy found 79%, and zy found 81% - with

2362:

Primary sources are more likely to be tolerated in veterinary content or for very rare conditions.

2338: 2307: 2296: 2087: 519:, such as the popular press, are not suitable sources for reliable medical information. (See also: 3641:

Well yeah, where that is a proper 'diagnosis' and not pundit speculation and/or in a weak source.

1899:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

4487:

I wonder if we need to address things in different ways. For example, consider these use cases:

4095: 3332:

Age and health concerns about Donald Trump#Allegations of mental illness by medical professionals

2947: 2164: 2152:"Junk science is cited in abortion ban cases. Researchers are fighting the 'fatally flawed' work" 1180:

Any DOI can be turned into a resolvable web address by prepending "https://doi.org/" to it (e.g.

1062:

to find all journals indexed in MEDLINE (5266 journals as of 29 May 2020); or go directly to the

4570: 4428: 4359: 4214: 4171: 4136: 4099: 4075: 4045: 3982: 3974: 3899: 3855: 3485: 3453: 3390: 3339: 3287: 3269: 3226: 3163: 3052: 3044: 2883: 2779: 2670: 2575: 2561: 2547: 2532: 2367: 2261: 2201: 1530: 825: 1521: 1430:

Ernst, Edzard (2012). "Acupuncture: What Does the Most Reliable Evidence Tell Us? An Update".

98: 4558: 4377: 4340: 4300: 4060: 4005: 3917: 3869: 3646: 3609: 3522: 3467: 3404: 3359: 3302: 3177: 3090: 2798: 1770: 1680: 1620: 774: 661: 642: 624: 894: 4395: 4322: 4284: 4238: 3707: 3507: 3172:

Agree, that example does not seem to be about 'diagnosis' or 'serious medical conditions'.

3043:

subject, because the answer is not changing" or "All future discussions will be subject to

2813: 2619: 2219: 2035: 1970: 1944: 1539: 1474: 781: 330: 3829:. To illustrate why, I'm going to give you my own totally non-RS diagnosis about a BLP: 866:

Full, searchable list of all tutorials - training materials in HTML, PDF and Video formats

429: 8: 4458: 3830: 2292: 50: 2595: 1331: 3792: 3764: 3749: 3731: 3675: 3628: 3587: 3537: 3423: 3317: 3244: 3137: 3067: 3025: 2999: 2971: 2905: 2844: 2749: 2681: 2640: 2508: 1615: 1503: 1305: 1279: 1256: 1232: 524: 421: 90: 65: 3864:

Okay, so would you agree if the prohibition applied only to "non-obvious" statements?

2347:

editors believing the media hype (can result in bad content and unbalanced articles )

1570: 1443: 1416: 4566: 4540: 4533: 4526: 4519: 4512: 4505: 4498: 4355: 4332: 4276: 4210: 4167: 4132: 4124: 4071: 4041: 3978: 3895: 3851: 3481: 3449: 3386: 3335: 3283: 3265: 3222: 3159: 3048: 2879: 2775: 2666: 2627: 2620: 2571: 2557: 2503:

Note the clarifying & corrective effects of secondary sources in this situation.

2363: 2257: 2197: 1506: 1496: 1454: 1447: 1420: 1384: 1366: 1310: 1261: 1099: 713:

As of 2014, there are concerns regarding positive bias in publications from China on

46: 479:

Explanatory essay about the Knowledge:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) policy

4450: 4446: 4437: 4430: 4386:

If either of you, or anyone else, would like to input those, or other, thoughts at

4373: 4369: 4336: 4296: 4202: 4128: 4123:

trouble explaining why a scholarly history book feels okay, but the "peer-reviewed

4056: 4001: 3913: 3865: 3821: 3642: 3620: 3605: 3518: 3495: 3463: 3400: 3382: 3355: 3334:? I don't expect editors to restrict themselves to MEDRS' ideal in such articles. 3298: 3173: 3086: 2864: 2794: 2394: 2101: 1488: 1479: 1439: 1412: 1358: 1349:

Dentzer S (2009). "Communicating medical news—pitfalls of health care journalism".

1301: 1291: 1252: 1244: 1195: 770: 766: 755: 704: 520: 1083:

I found what looks like a good source, but can't access the full text – what next?

1080:

Besides being a secondary source, what else indicates a source is of high quality?

4493: 4442: 4412: 4391: 4318: 4280: 4232: 4194: 4186: 4155: 4112: 3957: 3662:

b) The onus isn't on her to disprove the IBA which is unreliable and discredited.

3503: 3370: 2936: 2809: 2531:

requires MEDRS? This is for a Good Article nomination that is currently ongoing.

2433: 2351: 2215: 1817: 1564: 1296: 1228: 678: 560: 487: 4018: 2528: 831:

In the rare cases where primary sources can be used, they should be attributed.

4454: 4350: 3744:

You were banned from the article for a reason. Why are you discussing it here?

3601: 2875: 2733: 2472: 2409: 1625: 1205: 865: 635: 582: 296: 2993:

as they did not provide a convincing reason why they should be unblocked from

1191:

Are there special considerations for conflicts of interest for health content?

1072: 888: 261: 4585: 3997: 3909: 3886: 3760: 3745: 3727: 3624: 3583: 3377:

negotiate about which claims are necessary to include and how to phrase them.

3313: 3257:

There's nothing in MEDRS that says BLPs are "biomedical information", either.

3240: 3133: 3063: 3021: 2967: 2940: 2901: 2840: 2745: 2726: 2609: 2504: 2283:

psychologists, in exchange extracting registration dues, and licensing fees?

2178: 2128:

knowledge." It's a guideline that has launched a thousand Talk page disputes.

1450: 728: 699: 620: 588: 495: 3531:

Exactly, and in the content dispute that has brought about this discussion (

2594:

is where it is making medical claims (although vague). The source used there

2287:

marketing channel where physicians were not primed to regard it critically?

4543: 4536: 4529: 4522: 4515: 4508: 4501: 4225:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Muslim grooming gangs in the United Kingdom

3970: 3558: 3532: 3499: 3445: 3101: 3082: 2994: 2932: 2448: 2400:

Perhaps, in the spirit of giving background to a well-though-out question,

2385: 2156: 1896: 1499: 1457: 1387: 1369: 1327: 1313: 1264: 1132: 1091: 1055: 1032: 609: 597:

So if primary sources can be used in rare cases, what are those rare cases?

516: 1548:"Many US researchers still say such funding is a waste of time and money." 1423: 965: 934: 4198: 4091: 3109: 2962: 1362: 556: 1248: 880: 871: 677:

is merely a search engine and the majority of content it indexes is not

266: 4408: 4182: 4151: 4108: 3953: 2828: 2790: 2742:

reported that based on video footage Putin may have Parkinson's disease

2442:

Knowledge:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Avoid primary sources

2429: 2401: 2325:

Knowledge:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Avoid primary sources

1883: 1865: 1597:

Why Pay for What’s Free? Finding Open Access and Public Domain Articles

1015: 4436:

This has come up a few times in the past. Sometimes there are plainly

4335:

goes out the window while the media is pumping out volumes of stuff.

4228: 3837:

hair and green eyes has a significantly elevated risk of skin cancer.

3833:

has a significantly elevated risk of skin cancer due to her genetics.

2405: 2115:"Inside Knowledge's endless war over the coronavirus lab leak theory" 787:

If a treatment hasn't been shown to work, can we say it doesn't work?

344: 3198:

Knowledge:Biomedical_information#What_is_not_biomedical_information?

2022: 2004: 1492: 1181: 3579: 3200:. A relevant excerpt of examples of what is not covered by MEDRS: 3106:

Both sisters were accused of being either secretly male or intersex

2605: 2238:

neither does a review by psychiatrists on psychosomatic literature.

2174: 1958: 1933: 1131:

for journal articles available without a subscription. Install the

828:

reviews provide stronger evidence than a regular secondary source.

263: 3216:

Examples of people with the disease in literature, video, or songs

2078: 1073:

MEDLINE, PubMed, and PMC (PubMed Central): How are they different?

1069:

MEDLINE, PubMed, and PMC (PubMed Central): How are they different?

1043:

journals (5021 journals as of 29 May 2020); or go directly to the

964:

If you know the journal’s NLM Title Abbreviation, enter it in the

4014:

If I've understood the distinction you're drawing, then we need:

3047:

rules, because we've wasted enough time on throw-away accounts".

2520: 2098:"How Knowledge Prevents the Spread of Coronavirus Misinformation" 491: 1829:. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at 574:

information is that the popular press are not suitable sources.

2404:

has input on considerations when MEDRS was originally drafted.

2334:

We have had multiple problems with primary sources, including:

1149: 674: 577:

Whenever possible, you should cite a secondary source such as:

311: 1163:

which you can use to generate a full citation automatically.

1110: 738:

What if I can’t find any MEDRS-compliant sources on a subject?

710:

Can I cite Chinese studies about Traditional Chinese Medicine?

267: 4162:

In policy terms, I think we'd call that "appropriate", as in

3570: 2705:

Does WP:MEDRS apply to medical information about individuals?

2527:

Hi all, looking for some guidance on what, if any content in

1596: 1160: 4086:

I think Chris's surname is unhelpful. None of the people at

3702:, "Khelif initially appealed but then withdrew her motion"; 1159:

Once you have the PMID, there are a number of tools such as

289:

for Knowledge's health content are defined in the guideline

4491:

Are all herbal/traditional/self-care remedies truly FRINGE?

4317:

section. 7667 word article with 28% on the Doubts section.

3566: 3206:

If the patient is still alive or is recently deceased, the

2874:

Spend a while thinking about what some celebrity articles (

2636:

Talk:Imane Khelif#RfC on weight of "misinformation" in lead

2306:

Which blanket-ban on primary sources are you referring to?

2141:

Meta-analyses need careful scrutiny, peer-reviewed or not.

2118: 1575:" was created by pressure from a few advocates in Congress" 1233:"Seeking health information online: does Knowledge matter?" 4557:, so I suspect we can manage equally well with the latest 4388:

Talk:Lucy_Letby#Determination_of_WP:UNDUE_should_be_per_RS

4273:

Talk:Lucy_Letby#Determination_of_WP:UNDUE_should_be_per_RS

3790:

As per the rest of what you wrote, M.Bitton summed it up.

3237:

This page is not one of Knowledge's policies or guidelines

1801: 1783: 504:

Does Knowledge have special rules for medical information?

280: 1980:

Knowledge:WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs

372:

To discuss reliability of specific sources, please go to

2592:

as the diet and sport take a toll on the wrestler's body

1983:

Template:WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs

1128: 4271:

ensure good sourcing? There's an ongoing discussion at

3480:, which doesn't necessarily come with visible signs. 1177:

is a PMID, will create a link to the indicated article.

1054:====Create a list of all journals indexed in MEDLINE}} 933:

If you know the journal’s exact title, enter it in the

4550:

Are we talking about whole articles or brief mentions?

1077:

Are there ways to find good sources other than PubMed?

870:

YouTube channel for the National Library of Medicine:

670:

I have a source from PubMed, so that's reliable right?

511:

Why do you have special rules for medical information?

2230:

This is also the reason why this guideline is flawed.

924:

Determine if a specific journal is indexed in MEDLINE

3476:

I haven't followed this, but I saw a headline about

2034:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 1895:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 1807: 1561:"This kind of science isn't worth any time or money" 915:

Finding journals that comply with WP:MEDRS standards

15: 2630:. Interested editors are invited to participate at 841:

How can Quackwatch be considered a reliable source?

336:

clinical publications about evidence-based medicine

4331:I'm supposing that is one of those articles where 3696:A reliable sources don't say she waived her appeal 1064:search results for all journals indexed in MEDLINE 816:being a stronger claim than one with attribution. 4227:, where the usually-reliable newspaper of record 3221:I don't see a need to further clarify the issue. 2863:, a British tabloid that is deprecated by RSP at 2793:would imply that was a real condition, so would. 456:Knowledge:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) 292:Knowledge:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) 4583: 1968:, a project which is currently considered to be 1655: 1201:What if I am being paid to edit medical content? 756:Knowledge's general definition of a fringe claim 631:Why can't I use articles from the popular press? 2894:Claims of Vladimir Putin's incapacity and death 2661:You might get more responses if you post it at 1966:WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs 1148:Almost all medical articles are indexed by the 2453:"The staggering death toll of scientific lies" 2274:Reconsidering a blanket-ban of primary sources 1544:"still draws fire from traditional scientists" 1226: 834:Why not say there is a call for more research? 761:How should fringe medical claims be described? 3912:. I agree sources should always be credible. 1641: 690:National Center for Biotechnology Information 533:MEDRS-compliant sources are required for all 492:manual of style for medicine-related articles 1986:Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs articles 918:For full comprehensive instructions, go to: 4627:Project-Class Alternative medicine articles 4445:. This is, I think, the sort of situation 1277: 4034:Age and health concerns about Donald Trump 3967:Angelina Jolie#Cancer prevention treatment 2898:Age and health concerns about Donald Trump 2048:Knowledge:WikiProject Alternative medicine 1648: 1634: 1011:, also known as "Core clinical journals". 885:National Library of Medicine (NLM) Catalog 539:policy on the biographies of living people 488:guidelines on sourcing for medical content 3600:Well there you have it. On such multiple- 2717:). In two RfCs on Trump's mental health ( 2088:mentioned by multiple media organizations 2051:Template:WikiProject Alternative medicine 1763:does not require a rating on Knowledge's 1348: 1304: 1295: 1255: 859:How can I find good sources using PubMed? 1326: 800:Evidence exists, and it shows an effect. 797:Evidence exists, and it shows no effect. 317:review articles from the past five years 4632:Knowledge pages referenced by the press 4592:Knowledge essays about reliable sources 4315:Lucy_Letby#Doubts_about_the_convictions 4309:I'd agree with that. That is certainly 3351:Age and health concerns about Joe Biden 2444:. For example, consider the following: 2440:I think that there is sound reason for 1402: 1109:Search for the title of the article on 305:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) 25:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) 4584: 3706:, "Khelif later withdrew her appeal"; 3208:Knowledge:Biographies of living people 2989:Gitz had an unblock request denied at 2149: 1432:Journal of Pain and Symptom Management 1392: 1103:Knowledge, not just in article space. 604:be useful in these common situations: 374:Knowledge:Reliable sources/Noticeboard 2447: 1629: 1429: 1332:"Why reading should not be believing" 1145:How do I reference a medical article? 1113:. On the results page, click on "All 988: 983: 978: 973: 957: 952: 947: 942: 920:Searching for Journals in NLM Catalog 812:Should medical content be attributed? 790:There are three possible situations: 769:, as well as at other places such as 731:weight. Unlike other branches of the 3824:, I think I disagree with you about 3312:covered by many news organisations? 3108:; from the article about her sister 2632:Talk:Imane Khelif/Archive 4#RfC lead 2471:The article highlights cardiologist 2243:2003:EC:6F4B:2200:68E5:5719:3D0:F25F 2073: 1752: 1750: 1746: 989:The New England journal of medicine 968:, followed by the field qualifier . 948:The Journal of Supportive Oncology 437: 390: 360: 345:Centre for Reviews and Dissemination 275: 4617:NA-importance pharmacology articles 4612:Project-Class pharmacology articles 3262:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Medicine 2663:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Medicine 2478:The article then goes on to state: 1977:Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs 1940:Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs 1832:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Medicine 1769:It is of interest to the following 1472: 1136:full text version of the article). 958:The Journal of Supportive Oncology 930:, which I will also reproduce here: 695:Can I use websites like Quackwatch? 23:for discussing improvements to the 13: 4525:says they can't tell if it works, 1909:Knowledge:WikiProject Pharmacology 1466: 1411:(2), Control Clin Trials: 159–66, 937:followed by the field qualifier . 469:thoroughly vetted by the community 465:Knowledge's policies or guidelines 14: 4643: 4622:WikiProject Pharmacology articles 2738:In April 2022, tabloid newspaper 2519:Question about need for MEDRS in 2150:Glenza, Jessica (28 April 2024). 2028:This page is within the scope of 1964:This page is within the scope of 1912:Template:WikiProject Pharmacology 1889:This page is within the scope of 1823:This page is within the scope of 1444:10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2011.11.001 1182:https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c6801 1003:Via a search of the NLM Catalog: 342:Other potential sources include: 4088:Retrospective diagnosis#Examples 4026:Retrospective diagnosis#Examples 3841:should be considered sufficient. 3278:You might also be interested in 2991:User_talk:Gitz6666#August_2024_2 2945:User_talk:Gitz6666#August_2024_2 2626:There are currently two RFCs at 2077: 2031:WikiProject Alternative medicine 2021: 2003: 1957: 1932: 1882: 1864: 1810: 1800: 1782: 1751: 1616:WikiProject Medicine's Talk Page 1022:(118 journals as of 5 May 2020) 566:Why can't I use primary sources? 441: 399: 364: 279: 249: 40:Click here to start a new topic. 4602:NA-importance medicine articles 4597:Project-Class medicine articles 3563:International Boxing Federation 2523:(sumo wrestlers) health section 751:What is a fringe medical claim? 530:When do I need to follow MEDRS? 4607:All WikiProject Medicine pages 4415:14:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC) 4247:12:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 4219:05:55, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 4189:07:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 4176:03:07, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 4158:18:34, 15 September 2024 (UTC) 4141:03:21, 15 September 2024 (UTC) 4115:14:29, 10 September 2024 (UTC) 3922:05:34, 10 September 2024 (UTC) 3494:I am not clear what you mean, 3385:attribution for such sources. 2113:Jackson Ryan (June 24, 2021). 1841:Knowledge:WikiProject Medicine 1589: 1512: 1473:Qiu, Jane (January 12, 2010), 1376: 1342: 1320: 1271: 1220: 984:Results = 1 record retrieved: 953:Results = 1 record retrieved: 1: 4400:12:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC) 4390:, that would be appreciated. 4382:07:36, 9 September 2024 (UTC) 4364:07:33, 9 September 2024 (UTC) 4345:13:30, 8 September 2024 (UTC) 4327:13:20, 8 September 2024 (UTC) 4305:12:27, 8 September 2024 (UTC) 4289:11:27, 8 September 2024 (UTC) 4080:07:41, 9 September 2024 (UTC) 4065:07:33, 9 September 2024 (UTC) 4050:07:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC) 4010:01:31, 5 September 2024 (UTC) 3987:01:38, 4 September 2024 (UTC) 3960:18:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC) 3904:22:03, 9 September 2024 (UTC) 3874:07:50, 9 September 2024 (UTC) 3860:06:56, 9 September 2024 (UTC) 3808:03:28, 5 September 2024 (UTC) 3773:09:33, 5 September 2024 (UTC) 3754:02:26, 5 September 2024 (UTC) 3740:02:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC) 3691:01:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC) 3651:13:47, 4 September 2024 (UTC) 3637:13:43, 4 September 2024 (UTC) 3614:13:34, 4 September 2024 (UTC) 3596:13:20, 4 September 2024 (UTC) 3553:12:37, 4 September 2024 (UTC) 3527:12:02, 4 September 2024 (UTC) 3512:11:55, 4 September 2024 (UTC) 3490:04:14, 4 September 2024 (UTC) 3472:03:45, 4 September 2024 (UTC) 3458:01:34, 4 September 2024 (UTC) 3439:00:12, 4 September 2024 (UTC) 3409:04:02, 4 September 2024 (UTC) 3395:04:00, 4 September 2024 (UTC) 3364:03:55, 4 September 2024 (UTC) 3344:01:41, 4 September 2024 (UTC) 3326:17:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC) 3307:16:58, 3 September 2024 (UTC) 3292:16:39, 3 September 2024 (UTC) 3274:16:38, 3 September 2024 (UTC) 3253:15:14, 3 September 2024 (UTC) 3231:14:47, 3 September 2024 (UTC) 3182:20:20, 1 September 2024 (UTC) 3168:20:13, 1 September 2024 (UTC) 3146:19:20, 1 September 2024 (UTC) 2744:?) that are hard to foresee. 2096:Noam Cohem (March 15, 2020). 2054:Alternative medicine articles 2042:and see a list of open tasks. 1903:and see a list of open tasks. 1844:Template:WikiProject Medicine 1417:10.1016/s0197-2456(97)00150-5 1092:WikiProject Resource Requests 847:guidelines on fringe theories 743:section about finding sources 733:National Institutes of Health 686:National Institutes of Health 498:apply to biomedical content. 303:sources of information about 37:Put new text under old text. 1656:Knowledge biomedical editing 1475:"Publish or perish in China" 1297:10.1371/journal.pmed.0050095 715:Traditional Chinese Medicine 7: 4575:20:31, 29 August 2024 (UTC) 4555:Category:Experimental drugs 4483:19:22, 29 August 2024 (UTC) 4463:19:12, 29 August 2024 (UTC) 4207:Knowledge:Scholarly journal 3095:12:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC) 3076:09:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC) 3057:17:10, 27 August 2024 (UTC) 3034:15:29, 28 August 2024 (UTC) 3015:11:14, 28 August 2024 (UTC) 2980:11:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC) 2956:16:07, 27 August 2024 (UTC) 2914:08:48, 28 August 2024 (UTC) 2888:17:14, 27 August 2024 (UTC) 2853:15:32, 27 August 2024 (UTC) 2818:14:12, 27 August 2024 (UTC) 2803:13:30, 27 August 2024 (UTC) 2784:12:34, 27 August 2024 (UTC) 2758:10:52, 27 August 2024 (UTC) 2697:09:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC) 2675:17:14, 23 August 2024 (UTC) 2656:10:45, 23 August 2024 (UTC) 2614:01:45, 15 August 2024 (UTC) 2584:00:55, 15 August 2024 (UTC) 2566:00:50, 15 August 2024 (UTC) 2541:14:59, 14 August 2024 (UTC) 2513:18:02, 23 August 2024 (UTC) 2266:03:31, 27 August 2024 (UTC) 2251:21:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC) 2188:Thanks, that's interesting. 1666:Editing for medical experts 45:New to Knowledge? Welcome! 10: 4648: 4539:say it's "promising", and 2206:21:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC) 2183:19:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC) 1557:" is a political creation" 1405:Controlled Clinical Trials 928:searching by journal title 897:(rev. December 19, 2019). 643:acting as a primary source 541:("BLP"), MEDRS applies to 517:general sourcing guideline 484:Frequently Asked Questions 419: 416:Frequently asked questions 88: 4120:Health of Abraham Lincoln 3885:Did you ever work on the 3478:5α-Reductase 2 deficiency 2436:09:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC) 2414:17:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC) 2372:18:38, 12 July 2024 (UTC) 2320:17:56, 12 July 2024 (UTC) 2301:17:52, 12 July 2024 (UTC) 2224:21:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC) 2016: 1952: 1877: 1795: 1777: 1661: 1154:Digital object identifier 1152:search engine and have a 856:Finding and using sources 727:Yes, but again only with 75:Be welcoming to newcomers 3561:was disqualified by the 2769:As for whether WP:MEDRS 2211:rejecting bad MR papers: 1892:WikiProject Pharmacology 1595:Ockerbloom, John Mark. " 1100:copyright violating link 881:PubMed User Guide - FAQs 849:includes the concept of 707:attribution to the POV. 382:WikiProject Pharmacology 376:or to the talk pages of 3330:You mean articles like 2931:: Gitz was banned from 2839:) we can include this. 2679:Thanks for the advice. 2165:British Medical Journal 1611:Other helpful resources 1045:search results for all 593:a high-quality textbook 496:guidelines and policies 3993:make the determination 2529:Rikishi#Health effects 2487:After the revelations, 2327:isn't a blanket ban. 2193:Newcastle–Ottawa scale 2173:is a cautionary tale. 1703:Plain and simple guide 1686:Biomedical information 1056:Search the NLM Catalog 1033:Search the NLM Catalog 1018:Abridged Index Medicus 1007:Abridged Index Medicus 998:Abridged Index Medicus 994: 966:NLM Catalog search box 935:NLM Catalog search box 826:Cochrane Collaboration 535:biomedical information 70:avoid personal attacks 4559:multi-level marketing 4441:information), citing 4193:That's a good idea. 3781:Sydney Morning Herald 2833:alternative diagnoses 2331:is just common sense. 2123:The exclusion of the 1915:pharmacology articles 1698:Conflicts of interest 1601:Everybody's Libraries 1531:Clinical Rheumatology 1522:Nature Reviews Cancer 1398:Further information: 1237:J Am Med Inform Assoc 1088:The Knowledge Library 1025:Create a list of all 931: 911:Searching NLM Catalog 608:when writing about a 243:Auto-archiving period 3130:sports-reference.com 2837:delusional disorders 2570:As always, thankyou 2045:Alternative medicine 2036:Alternative medicine 2011:Alternative medicine 1826:WikiProject Medicine 1708:WikiProject Medicine 1621:Knowledge:Why MEDRS? 1571:Science Policy Forum 1363:10.1056/NEJMp0805753 1278:Schwitzer G (2008). 1188:Conflict of interest 782:alternative medicine 555:Probably not. Most 378:WikiProject Medicine 323:free review articles 299:. Here are links to 4471:Firefangledfeathers 4205:have all worked on 3831:Bryce Dallas Howard 3122:thestraightdope.com 2308:Firefangledfeathers 2086:This page has been 1249:10.1197/jamia.M3059 1133:UnPaywall extension 996:Review the list of 467:as it has not been 4019:Charles III#Health 3280:WP:Bring me a rock 3116:. Sources are the 2948:Bluethricecreamman 1765:content assessment 1173:Typing "]", where 1139:Librarian's advice 1014:Stand alone list: 486:about Knowledge's 295:and are typically 81:dispute resolution 42: 4245: 4125:literary analysis 4100:Marfan's syndrome 4098:contestants. The 3846: 2982: 2628:Talk:Imane Khelif 2621:Talk:Imane Khelif 2576:Rollinginhisgrave 2548:Rollinginhisgrave 2533:Rollinginhisgrave 2138: 2137: 2070: 2069: 2066: 2065: 2062: 2061: 1998: 1997: 1994: 1993: 1927: 1926: 1923: 1922: 1859: 1858: 1855: 1854: 1847:medicine articles 1745: 1744: 1738: 1737: 1487:(7278): 142–143, 1117:versions" (where 993: 992: 962: 961: 741:MEDRS contains a 673:Not necessarily. 559:articles are not 477: 476: 452:explanatory essay 414: 389: 388: 359: 358: 274: 273: 61:Assume good faith 38: 4639: 4368:I'm thinking of 4237: 4165: 4129:Talk:Cass Review 3844: 3828: 2960: 2943:violations. See 2466: 2464: 2463: 2389:specific issue. 2169: 2130: 2109: 2081: 2074: 2056: 2055: 2052: 2049: 2046: 2025: 2018: 2017: 2007: 2000: 1999: 1988: 1987: 1984: 1981: 1978: 1961: 1954: 1953: 1948: 1936: 1929: 1928: 1917: 1916: 1913: 1910: 1907: 1886: 1879: 1878: 1868: 1861: 1860: 1849: 1848: 1845: 1842: 1839: 1820: 1815: 1814: 1813: 1804: 1797: 1796: 1786: 1779: 1778: 1756: 1755: 1754: 1747: 1671:Reliable sources 1650: 1643: 1636: 1627: 1626: 1604: 1593: 1587: 1516: 1510: 1509: 1470: 1464: 1461: 1426: 1396: 1390: 1380: 1374: 1373: 1346: 1340: 1339: 1324: 1318: 1317: 1308: 1299: 1275: 1269: 1268: 1259: 1224: 1061: 1060:currentlyindexed 1038: 1016:List of current 971: 970: 940: 939: 889:NLM Catalog Help 698:Quackwatch is a 666: 660: 656: 600:Primary sources 445: 444: 438: 432: 404: 403: 391: 368: 367: 361: 283: 276: 268: 254: 253: 244: 101: 16: 4647: 4646: 4642: 4641: 4640: 4638: 4637: 4636: 4582: 4581: 4494:Valerian (herb) 4434: 4279:, for example. 4163: 4127:" mentioned at 3825: 3700:Times of Israel 3213:Popular culture 3045:WP:EXTCONFIRMED 2987:Further Context 2707: 2624: 2574:for your help. 2525: 2461: 2459: 2352:review articles 2276: 2143: 2134: 2133: 2125:lab leak theory 2112: 2095: 2091: 2053: 2050: 2047: 2044: 2043: 1985: 1982: 1979: 1976: 1975: 1942: 1914: 1911: 1908: 1905: 1904: 1846: 1843: 1840: 1837: 1836: 1818:Medicine portal 1816: 1811: 1809: 1741: 1740: 1739: 1734: 1693:Manual of style 1657: 1654: 1612: 1609: 1608: 1607: 1594: 1590: 1565:Wallace Sampson 1518:Some examples: 1517: 1513: 1493:10.1038/463142a 1471: 1467: 1397: 1393: 1381: 1377: 1347: 1343: 1325: 1321: 1276: 1272: 1225: 1221: 1212: 1202: 1192: 1189: 1146: 1140: 1125: 1107: 1084: 1081: 1078: 1070: 1059: 1036: 1030: 1001: 925: 916: 886: 878: 863: 860: 857: 842: 835: 813: 788: 780:In the case of 762: 752: 749: 739: 725: 711: 696: 671: 664: 658: 654: 632: 598: 567: 561:review articles 553: 550: 531: 512: 505: 502: 482:These are some 480: 473: 472: 442: 436: 435: 428: 424: 417: 415: 385: 365: 301:possibly useful 297:review articles 270: 269: 264: 241: 107: 106: 105: 104: 97: 93: 86: 56: 12: 11: 5: 4645: 4635: 4634: 4629: 4624: 4619: 4614: 4609: 4604: 4599: 4594: 4580: 4579: 4578: 4577: 4564: 4563: 4562: 4547: 4518:say it works, 4433: 4427: 4426: 4425: 4424: 4423: 4422: 4421: 4420: 4419: 4418: 4417: 4404: 4403: 4402: 4268: 4267: 4266: 4265: 4264: 4263: 4262: 4261: 4260: 4259: 4258: 4257: 4256: 4255: 4254: 4253: 4252: 4251: 4250: 4249: 4147: 4104: 4094:or the latest 4084: 4083: 4082: 4039: 4038: 4037: 4029: 4022: 4000:is necessary. 3949: 3948: 3947: 3946: 3945: 3944: 3943: 3942: 3941: 3940: 3939: 3938: 3937: 3936: 3935: 3934: 3933: 3932: 3931: 3930: 3929: 3928: 3927: 3926: 3925: 3924: 3891: 3883: 3879: 3847: 3842: 3838: 3834: 3818: 3817: 3816: 3815: 3814: 3813: 3812: 3811: 3810: 3788: 3777: 3776: 3775: 3719: 3670: 3666: 3663: 3660: 3657: 3656: 3655: 3654: 3653: 3498:, but doesn't 3492: 3419: 3418: 3417: 3416: 3415: 3414: 3413: 3412: 3411: 3378: 3294: 3258: 3219: 3218: 3217: 3214: 3211: 3204: 3194: 3193: 3192: 3191: 3190: 3189: 3188: 3187: 3186: 3185: 3184: 3040: 3039: 3038: 3037: 3036: 2984: 2926: 2925: 2924: 2923: 2922: 2921: 2920: 2919: 2918: 2917: 2916: 2876:Britney Spears 2872: 2766: 2765: 2736:the statement 2734:Vladimir Putin 2706: 2703: 2702: 2701: 2700: 2699: 2623: 2618: 2617: 2616: 2601: 2588: 2587: 2586: 2553: 2524: 2517: 2516: 2515: 2501: 2500: 2499: 2493: 2484: 2476: 2473:Don Poldermans 2469: 2468: 2467: 2451:(2024-08-23). 2438: 2425: 2421: 2377: 2376: 2375: 2374: 2360: 2357: 2356: 2355: 2348: 2345: 2342: 2339:cherry picking 2332: 2293:Additivefreesb 2275: 2272: 2271: 2270: 2269: 2268: 2239: 2235: 2231: 2228: 2227: 2226: 2212: 2189: 2171: 2170: 2142: 2139: 2136: 2135: 2132: 2131: 2110: 2092: 2085: 2084: 2082: 2068: 2067: 2064: 2063: 2060: 2059: 2057: 2040:the discussion 2026: 2014: 2013: 2008: 1996: 1995: 1992: 1991: 1989: 1962: 1950: 1949: 1937: 1925: 1924: 1921: 1920: 1918: 1901:the discussion 1887: 1875: 1874: 1869: 1857: 1856: 1853: 1852: 1850: 1822: 1821: 1805: 1793: 1792: 1787: 1775: 1774: 1768: 1757: 1743: 1742: 1736: 1735: 1733: 1732: 1731: 1730: 1725: 1720: 1715: 1705: 1700: 1695: 1690: 1689: 1688: 1683: 1678: 1668: 1662: 1659: 1658: 1653: 1652: 1645: 1638: 1630: 1624: 1623: 1618: 1610: 1606: 1605: 1603:(23 Oct 2018). 1588: 1586: 1585: 1568: 1550: 1537: 1528: 1511: 1465: 1463: 1462: 1438:(2): e11–e13. 1427: 1391: 1375: 1341: 1330:(2008-06-21). 1319: 1270: 1218: 1217: 1213: 1210: 1200: 1190: 1187: 1186: 1185: 1178: 1144: 1138: 1123: 1111:Google Scholar 1106:Google Scholar 1105: 1082: 1079: 1076: 1068: 1024: 1020:(AIM) journals 995: 991: 990: 986: 985: 981: 980: 979:n engl j med 976: 975: 960: 959: 955: 954: 950: 949: 945: 944: 923: 914: 884: 876: 861: 858: 855: 840: 833: 811: 809:these claims. 802: 801: 798: 795: 786: 775:WP:EXCEPTIONAL 760: 750: 747: 737: 719: 709: 700:self-published 694: 669: 636:current events 630: 629: 628: 625:WP:PRIMARYNEWS 616: 613: 596: 595: 594: 591: 585: 583:review article 565: 551: 548: 529: 510: 503: 500: 494:, and how the 478: 475: 474: 462: 461: 448: 446: 434: 433: 425: 420: 418: 398: 397: 396: 394: 387: 386: 371: 369: 357: 356: 355: 354: 340: 327: 308: 284: 272: 271: 262: 260: 259: 256: 255: 109: 108: 103: 102: 94: 89: 87: 85: 84: 77: 72: 63: 57: 55: 54: 43: 34: 33: 30: 29: 28: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4644: 4633: 4630: 4628: 4625: 4623: 4620: 4618: 4615: 4613: 4610: 4608: 4605: 4603: 4600: 4598: 4595: 4593: 4590: 4589: 4587: 4576: 4572: 4568: 4565: 4560: 4556: 4551: 4548: 4545: 4542: 4538: 4535: 4531: 4528: 4524: 4521: 4517: 4514: 4510: 4507: 4503: 4500: 4495: 4492: 4489: 4488: 4486: 4485: 4484: 4480: 4476: 4472: 4467: 4466: 4465: 4464: 4460: 4456: 4452: 4448: 4444: 4439: 4432: 4416: 4413: 4410: 4405: 4401: 4397: 4393: 4389: 4385: 4384: 4383: 4379: 4375: 4371: 4367: 4366: 4365: 4361: 4357: 4352: 4348: 4347: 4346: 4342: 4338: 4334: 4330: 4329: 4328: 4324: 4320: 4316: 4312: 4308: 4307: 4306: 4302: 4298: 4293: 4292: 4291: 4290: 4286: 4282: 4278: 4274: 4248: 4244: 4240: 4236: 4235: 4230: 4226: 4222: 4221: 4220: 4216: 4212: 4208: 4204: 4200: 4196: 4192: 4191: 4190: 4187: 4184: 4179: 4178: 4177: 4173: 4169: 4161: 4160: 4159: 4156: 4153: 4148: 4144: 4143: 4142: 4138: 4134: 4130: 4126: 4121: 4118: 4117: 4116: 4113: 4110: 4105: 4101: 4097: 4093: 4089: 4085: 4081: 4077: 4073: 4068: 4067: 4066: 4062: 4058: 4053: 4052: 4051: 4047: 4043: 4040: 4035: 4030: 4027: 4023: 4020: 4016: 4015: 4013: 4012: 4011: 4007: 4003: 3999: 3994: 3990: 3989: 3988: 3984: 3980: 3976: 3972: 3968: 3964: 3963: 3962: 3961: 3958: 3955: 3923: 3919: 3915: 3911: 3910:Terry Schiavo 3907: 3906: 3905: 3901: 3897: 3892: 3888: 3887:Terry Schiavo 3884: 3880: 3877: 3876: 3875: 3871: 3867: 3863: 3862: 3861: 3857: 3853: 3848: 3843: 3839: 3835: 3832: 3823: 3819: 3809: 3806: 3805: 3804: 3801: 3798: 3795: 3789: 3786: 3782: 3778: 3774: 3770: 3766: 3762: 3757: 3756: 3755: 3751: 3747: 3743: 3742: 3741: 3737: 3733: 3729: 3725: 3720: 3717: 3713: 3712:3 Wire Sports 3709: 3705: 3701: 3697: 3694: 3693: 3692: 3689: 3688: 3687: 3684: 3681: 3678: 3671: 3667: 3664: 3661: 3658: 3652: 3648: 3644: 3640: 3639: 3638: 3634: 3630: 3626: 3622: 3617: 3616: 3615: 3611: 3607: 3603: 3599: 3598: 3597: 3593: 3589: 3585: 3581: 3576: 3572: 3568: 3564: 3560: 3556: 3555: 3554: 3551: 3550: 3549: 3546: 3543: 3540: 3534: 3530: 3529: 3528: 3524: 3520: 3515: 3514: 3513: 3509: 3505: 3501: 3497: 3493: 3491: 3487: 3483: 3479: 3475: 3474: 3473: 3469: 3465: 3461: 3460: 3459: 3455: 3451: 3447: 3442: 3441: 3440: 3437: 3436: 3435: 3432: 3429: 3426: 3420: 3410: 3406: 3402: 3398: 3397: 3396: 3392: 3388: 3384: 3379: 3376: 3372: 3367: 3366: 3365: 3361: 3357: 3352: 3347: 3346: 3345: 3341: 3337: 3333: 3329: 3328: 3327: 3323: 3319: 3315: 3310: 3309: 3308: 3304: 3300: 3295: 3293: 3289: 3285: 3281: 3277: 3276: 3275: 3271: 3267: 3263: 3259: 3256: 3255: 3254: 3250: 3246: 3242: 3238: 3234: 3233: 3232: 3228: 3224: 3223:Mr. Swordfish 3220: 3215: 3212: 3209: 3205: 3203:Notable cases 3202: 3201: 3199: 3195: 3183: 3179: 3175: 3171: 3170: 3169: 3165: 3161: 3157: 3153: 3149: 3148: 3147: 3143: 3139: 3135: 3131: 3127: 3123: 3119: 3115: 3111: 3107: 3103: 3098: 3097: 3096: 3092: 3088: 3084: 3079: 3078: 3077: 3073: 3069: 3065: 3060: 3059: 3058: 3054: 3050: 3046: 3041: 3035: 3031: 3027: 3023: 3018: 3017: 3016: 3013: 3012: 3011: 3008: 3005: 3002: 2996: 2992: 2988: 2985: 2981: 2977: 2973: 2969: 2964: 2959: 2958: 2957: 2953: 2949: 2946: 2942: 2938: 2934: 2930: 2927: 2915: 2911: 2907: 2903: 2899: 2895: 2891: 2890: 2889: 2885: 2881: 2877: 2873: 2871:include that. 2870: 2866: 2862: 2861: 2856: 2855: 2854: 2850: 2846: 2842: 2838: 2834: 2831:or any other 2830: 2826: 2821: 2820: 2819: 2815: 2811: 2806: 2805: 2804: 2800: 2796: 2792: 2787: 2786: 2785: 2781: 2777: 2772: 2768: 2767: 2762: 2761: 2760: 2759: 2755: 2751: 2747: 2743: 2741: 2735: 2731: 2727: 2724: 2720: 2716: 2712: 2698: 2695: 2694: 2693: 2690: 2687: 2684: 2678: 2677: 2676: 2672: 2668: 2664: 2660: 2659: 2658: 2657: 2654: 2653: 2652: 2649: 2646: 2643: 2637: 2633: 2629: 2622: 2615: 2611: 2607: 2602: 2600: 2596: 2593: 2589: 2585: 2581: 2577: 2573: 2569: 2568: 2567: 2563: 2559: 2554: 2552: 2549: 2545: 2544: 2543: 2542: 2538: 2534: 2530: 2522: 2514: 2510: 2506: 2502: 2498: 2494: 2492: 2488: 2485: 2483: 2480: 2479: 2477: 2474: 2470: 2458: 2454: 2450: 2449:Piper, Kelsey 2446: 2445: 2443: 2439: 2437: 2434: 2431: 2426: 2422: 2418: 2417: 2416: 2415: 2411: 2407: 2403: 2398: 2396: 2390: 2387: 2381: 2373: 2369: 2365: 2361: 2358: 2353: 2349: 2346: 2343: 2340: 2336: 2335: 2333: 2330: 2326: 2323: 2322: 2321: 2317: 2313: 2309: 2305: 2304: 2303: 2302: 2298: 2294: 2288: 2284: 2280: 2267: 2263: 2259: 2254: 2253: 2252: 2248: 2244: 2240: 2236: 2232: 2229: 2225: 2221: 2217: 2213: 2209: 2208: 2207: 2203: 2199: 2194: 2190: 2187: 2186: 2185: 2184: 2180: 2176: 2168: 2166: 2159: 2158: 2153: 2148: 2147: 2146: 2129: 2126: 2120: 2116: 2111: 2108: 2103: 2099: 2094: 2093: 2089: 2083: 2080: 2076: 2075: 2072: 2058: 2041: 2037: 2033: 2032: 2027: 2024: 2020: 2019: 2015: 2012: 2009: 2006: 2002: 2001: 1990: 1973: 1972: 1967: 1963: 1960: 1956: 1955: 1951: 1946: 1941: 1938: 1935: 1931: 1930: 1919: 1902: 1898: 1894: 1893: 1888: 1885: 1881: 1880: 1876: 1873: 1870: 1867: 1863: 1862: 1851: 1834: 1833: 1828: 1827: 1819: 1808: 1806: 1803: 1799: 1798: 1794: 1791: 1788: 1785: 1781: 1780: 1776: 1772: 1766: 1762: 1758: 1749: 1748: 1729: 1726: 1724: 1721: 1719: 1716: 1714: 1711: 1710: 1709: 1706: 1704: 1701: 1699: 1696: 1694: 1691: 1687: 1684: 1682: 1679: 1677: 1674: 1673: 1672: 1669: 1667: 1664: 1663: 1660: 1651: 1646: 1644: 1639: 1637: 1632: 1631: 1628: 1622: 1619: 1617: 1614: 1613: 1602: 1598: 1592: 1584: 1580: 1576: 1572: 1569: 1566: 1562: 1558: 1554: 1551: 1549: 1545: 1541: 1538: 1536: 1532: 1529: 1527: 1523: 1520: 1519: 1515: 1508: 1505: 1501: 1498: 1494: 1490: 1486: 1482: 1481: 1476: 1469: 1459: 1456: 1452: 1449: 1445: 1441: 1437: 1433: 1428: 1425: 1422: 1418: 1414: 1410: 1406: 1400: 1399: 1395: 1389: 1386: 1379: 1371: 1368: 1364: 1360: 1356: 1352: 1345: 1337: 1333: 1329: 1328:Goldacre, Ben 1323: 1315: 1312: 1307: 1303: 1298: 1293: 1289: 1285: 1281: 1274: 1266: 1263: 1258: 1254: 1250: 1246: 1242: 1238: 1234: 1230: 1227:Laurent, MR; 1223: 1219: 1216: 1209: 1207: 1199: 1197: 1183: 1179: 1176: 1172: 1171: 1170: 1167: 1164: 1162: 1157: 1155: 1151: 1143: 1137: 1134: 1130: 1129:Unpaywall.org 1122: 1120: 1116: 1112: 1104: 1101: 1095: 1093: 1089: 1075: 1074: 1067: 1065: 1057: 1052: 1050: 1048: 1047:Index Medicus 1042: 1041:Index Medicus 1034: 1028: 1027:Index Medicus 1023: 1021: 1019: 1012: 1010: 1008: 999: 987: 982: 977: 972: 969: 967: 956: 951: 946: 941: 938: 936: 929: 922: 921: 913: 912: 908: 907: 903: 902: 898: 896: 892: 890: 883: 882: 875: 874: 868: 867: 854: 852: 848: 839: 832: 829: 827: 821: 817: 810: 806: 799: 796: 793: 792: 791: 785: 783: 778: 776: 772: 768: 759: 757: 746: 744: 736: 734: 730: 723: 718: 716: 708: 706: 701: 693: 691: 687: 682: 680: 676: 668: 663: 657:parameter of 650: 646: 644: 639: 637: 626: 622: 617: 614: 611: 607: 606: 605: 603: 592: 590: 589:meta-analysis 586: 584: 580: 579: 578: 575: 571: 564: 562: 558: 557:peer-reviewed 547: 544: 540: 536: 528: 526: 522: 518: 509: 499: 497: 493: 489: 485: 470: 466: 459: 457: 453: 447: 440: 439: 431: 427: 426: 423: 413: 410: 407: 402: 395: 393: 392: 383: 379: 375: 370: 363: 362: 353: 352: 347: 346: 341: 338: 337: 332: 331:TRIP database 328: 325: 324: 319: 318: 313: 310: 309: 306: 302: 298: 294: 293: 288: 287:Ideal sources 285: 282: 278: 277: 258: 257: 252: 248: 240: 236: 232: 228: 224: 220: 216: 212: 208: 204: 200: 196: 192: 188: 184: 180: 176: 172: 168: 164: 160: 156: 152: 148: 144: 140: 136: 132: 128: 124: 120: 117: 115: 111: 110: 100: 96: 95: 92: 82: 78: 76: 73: 71: 67: 64: 62: 59: 58: 52: 48: 47:Learn to edit 44: 41: 36: 35: 32: 31: 26: 22: 18: 17: 4567:WhatamIdoing 4549: 4490: 4435: 4356:WhatamIdoing 4310: 4269: 4233: 4211:WhatamIdoing 4168:WhatamIdoing 4133:WhatamIdoing 4072:WhatamIdoing 4042:WhatamIdoing 3992: 3979:WhatamIdoing 3950: 3896:WhatamIdoing 3852:WhatamIdoing 3802: 3799: 3796: 3793: 3791: 3784: 3723: 3695: 3685: 3682: 3679: 3676: 3674: 3580:this comment 3559:Imane Khelif 3547: 3544: 3541: 3538: 3536: 3533:Imane Khelif 3482:WhatamIdoing 3450:WhatamIdoing 3446:Imane Khelif 3433: 3430: 3427: 3424: 3422: 3387:WhatamIdoing 3374: 3369:It would be 3336:WhatamIdoing 3284:WhatamIdoing 3266:WhatamIdoing 3236: 3210:rules apply. 3160:WhatamIdoing 3155: 3151: 3113: 3105: 3102:Tamara Press 3049:WhatamIdoing 3009: 3006: 3003: 3000: 2998: 2995:Imane Khelif 2986: 2935:article for 2933:Imane Khelif 2928: 2880:WhatamIdoing 2868: 2859: 2824: 2776:AndyTheGrump 2770: 2739: 2737: 2708: 2691: 2688: 2685: 2682: 2680: 2667:WhatamIdoing 2650: 2647: 2644: 2641: 2639: 2625: 2591: 2572:WhatamIdoing 2558:WhatamIdoing 2526: 2495: 2489: 2486: 2481: 2460:. Retrieved 2456: 2399: 2391: 2382: 2378: 2364:WhatamIdoing 2289: 2285: 2281: 2277: 2258:WhatamIdoing 2198:WhatamIdoing 2172: 2161: 2157:The Guardian 2155: 2144: 2122: 2105: 2071: 2029: 1969: 1906:Pharmacology 1897:Pharmacology 1890: 1872:Pharmacology 1830: 1824: 1771:WikiProjects 1761:project page 1760: 1600: 1591: 1582: 1578: 1574: 1560: 1556: 1553:Science News 1547: 1543: 1534: 1525: 1514: 1484: 1478: 1468: 1435: 1431: 1408: 1404: 1394: 1378: 1354: 1351:N Engl J Med 1350: 1344: 1335: 1322: 1287: 1283: 1273: 1243:(4): 471–9. 1240: 1236: 1222: 1214: 1203: 1193: 1174: 1168: 1165: 1158: 1147: 1141: 1126: 1118: 1114: 1108: 1096: 1085: 1071: 1053: 1046: 1040: 1039:to find all 1031: 1026: 1017: 1013: 1006: 1002: 997: 963: 932: 917: 909: 904: 899: 893: 887: 879: 869: 864: 850: 843: 836: 830: 822: 818: 814: 807: 803: 789: 779: 763: 753: 740: 726: 724:(now NCCIH)? 712: 697: 683: 672: 662:cite journal 655:|laysummary= 651: 647: 640: 633: 610:rare disease 601: 599: 576: 572: 568: 554: 542: 532: 513: 506: 483: 481: 449: 408: 349: 343: 334: 321: 315: 304: 300: 290: 286: 246: 112: 19:This is the 4374:Bon courage 4337:Bon courage 4297:Bon courage 4203:LeadSongDog 4103:cite this". 4096:Love Island 4092:Kardashians 4057:Bon courage 4002:Bon courage 3914:Bon courage 3866:Bon courage 3822:Bon courage 3643:Bon courage 3606:Bon courage 3519:Bon courage 3496:Bon courage 3464:Bon courage 3401:Bon courage 3356:Bon courage 3299:Bon courage 3174:Bon courage 3154:instead of 3110:Irina Press 3087:Bon courage 2795:Bon courage 1718:How to edit 1540:Nature News 1229:Vickers, TJ 895:NLM Catalog 877:PubMed FAQs 720:Can I cite 667:for this). 537:. Like the 525:WP:WHYMEDRS 450:This is an 4586:Categories 4429:MEDRS and 4392:Bondegezou 4333:WP:NOTNEWS 4319:Bondegezou 4281:Bondegezou 4277:WP:PRIMARY 4234:S Marshall 4195:S Marshall 3504:Bondegezou 3399:For sure. 3375:fight over 3126:TransGriot 2966:in place. 2829:Morgellons 2810:Bondegezou 2791:Morgellons 2462:2024-08-23 2216:Jaredroach 1681:Why MEDRS? 1357:(1): 1–3. 1290:(5): e95. 1215:References 1211:References 748:Neutrality 543:statements 454:about the 320:(limit to 4455:Aquillion 4451:WP:FRINGE 4447:WP:PARITY 4438:WP:FRINGE 4431:WP:PARITY 4370:WP:NOTNEW 4229:The Times 3882:involved. 3779:From the 3716:France 24 3669:evidence. 3621:WP:NOTBMI 3383:WP:INTEXT 3118:Telegraph 2865:WP:THESUN 2395:WP:MEDORG 1723:Resources 1713:Talk page 1563:(quoting 1507:205052380 1451:0885-3924 1196:WP:MEDCOI 1124:Unpaywall 1037:jsubsetim 974:Example: 943:Example: 771:WP:WEIGHT 767:WP:FRINGE 705:WP:INTEXT 521:WP:MEDPOP 430:WP:MEDFAQ 333:provides 314:provides 83:if needed 66:Be polite 21:talk page 4561:product. 4544:33086877 4537:33480339 4530:34116572 4523:35378276 4516:33463459 4509:33922184 4502:36144755 4479:contribs 4443:WP:MEDRS 3975:or worse 3769:contribs 3746:M.Bitton 3736:contribs 3633:contribs 3602:WP:CTOPs 3592:contribs 3575:this RfC 3371:WP:UNDUE 3322:contribs 3249:contribs 3142:contribs 3072:contribs 3030:contribs 2976:contribs 2937:WP:MEDRS 2910:contribs 2849:contribs 2754:contribs 2723:RfC 2021 2719:RfC 2019 2505:Peaceray 2491:surgery. 2337:editors 2316:contribs 1838:Medicine 1790:Medicine 1728:Outreach 1500:20075887 1458:22248792 1388:25256890 1370:19118299 1336:Guardian 1314:18507496 1284:PLOS Med 1265:19390105 1231:(2009). 1175:dddddddd 1161:this one 1127:Consult 1049:journals 1029:journals 1009:journals 1005:List of 1000:journals 901:Overview 679:WP:MEDRS 549:Sourcing 422:Shortcut 114:Archives 99:WT:MEDRS 91:Shortcut 51:get help 4351:WP:VNOT 3969:for an 3156:genders 2929:Context 2860:The Sun 2825:The Sun 2740:The Sun 2598:source. 2521:Rikishi 1971:defunct 1945:defunct 1424:9551280 1306:2689661 1257:2705249 1206:WP:PAID 688:(NIH), 501:General 247:60 days 4511:, and 4201:, and 4199:Drmies 3998:WP:PAG 3827:source 3704:Forbes 2963:331dot 2941:WP:BLP 2771:should 2175:𝕁𝕄𝔽 2167:(BMJ). 1767:scale. 1480:Nature 1150:PubMed 1090:, and 1058:using 1035:using 873:tools. 851:parity 729:WP:DUE 675:PubMed 621:WP:DUE 458:policy 312:PubMed 4409:Colin 4183:Colin 4152:Colin 4109:Colin 3971:WP:FA 3954:Colin 3571:5-ARD 3500:WP:OR 3083:WP:RS 2430:Colin 2402:Colin 2386:WP:OR 2145:This 2107:high. 2102:Wired 1759:This 1504:S2CID 722:NCCAM 703:with 602:might 79:Seek 27:page. 4571:talk 4541:PMID 4534:PMID 4532:and 4527:PMID 4520:PMID 4513:PMID 4506:PMID 4499:PMID 4475:talk 4459:talk 4396:talk 4378:talk 4360:talk 4341:talk 4323:talk 4301:talk 4285:talk 4215:talk 4172:talk 4137:talk 4076:talk 4061:talk 4046:talk 4006:talk 3983:talk 3918:talk 3900:talk 3870:talk 3856:talk 3803:Path 3765:talk 3761:Gitz 3750:talk 3732:talk 3728:Gitz 3686:Path 3647:talk 3629:talk 3625:Gitz 3610:talk 3588:talk 3584:Gitz 3567:DSDs 3548:Path 3523:talk 3508:talk 3486:talk 3468:talk 3454:talk 3434:Path 3405:talk 3391:talk 3360:talk 3340:talk 3318:talk 3314:Gitz 3303:talk 3288:talk 3270:talk 3245:talk 3241:Gitz 3227:talk 3178:talk 3164:talk 3138:talk 3134:Gitz 3091:talk 3068:talk 3064:Gitz 3053:talk 3026:talk 3022:Gitz 3010:Path 2972:talk 2968:Gitz 2952:talk 2939:and 2906:talk 2902:Gitz 2896:and 2884:talk 2845:talk 2841:Gitz 2814:talk 2799:talk 2780:talk 2750:talk 2746:Gitz 2730:here 2721:and 2715:here 2711:here 2692:Path 2671:talk 2651:Path 2634:and 2610:talk 2580:talk 2562:talk 2537:talk 2509:talk 2410:talk 2406:CFCF 2368:talk 2312:talk 2297:talk 2262:talk 2247:talk 2220:talk 2202:talk 2179:talk 2163:the 2119:CNET 1497:PMID 1455:PMID 1448:ISSN 1421:PMID 1385:PMID 1367:PMID 1311:PMID 1262:PMID 1204:See 1194:See 906:FAQs 773:and 523:and 412:edit 406:view 348:and 329:The 68:and 4311:not 3977:). 3800:hed 3797:nis 3794:Tar 3767:) ( 3734:) ( 3722:of 3708:BBC 3683:hed 3680:nis 3677:Tar 3631:) ( 3590:) ( 3545:hed 3542:nis 3539:Tar 3431:hed 3428:nis 3425:Tar 3320:) ( 3247:) ( 3152:sex 3140:) ( 3070:) ( 3028:) ( 3007:hed 3004:nis 3001:Tar 2974:) ( 2908:) ( 2869:not 2857:IF 2847:) ( 2752:) ( 2689:hed 2686:nis 2683:Tar 2648:hed 2645:nis 2642:Tar 2606:KoA 2457:Vox 1676:FAQ 1599:." 1489:doi 1485:463 1440:doi 1413:doi 1359:doi 1355:360 1302:PMC 1292:doi 1253:PMC 1245:doi 1094:. 527:) 380:or 351:CDC 4588:: 4573:) 4504:, 4481:) 4477:/ 4461:) 4398:) 4380:) 4362:) 4343:) 4325:) 4303:) 4287:) 4217:) 4197:, 4174:) 4139:) 4078:) 4063:) 4048:) 4008:) 3985:) 3920:) 3902:) 3872:) 3858:) 3787:". 3771:) 3752:) 3738:) 3698:. 3649:) 3635:) 3612:) 3594:) 3582:. 3525:) 3510:) 3488:) 3470:) 3456:) 3407:) 3393:) 3362:) 3342:) 3324:) 3305:) 3290:) 3282:. 3272:) 3264:. 3251:) 3229:) 3180:) 3166:) 3144:) 3128:, 3124:, 3120:, 3112:: 3104:: 3093:) 3074:) 3055:) 3032:) 2997:. 2978:) 2954:) 2912:) 2886:) 2851:) 2816:) 2801:) 2782:) 2756:) 2673:) 2665:. 2638:. 2612:) 2582:) 2564:) 2539:) 2511:) 2455:. 2412:) 2370:) 2318:) 2314:/ 2299:) 2264:) 2249:) 2222:) 2204:) 2181:) 2160:. 2154:. 2121:. 2117:. 2104:. 2100:. 1581:; 1577:; 1573:: 1559:; 1555:: 1546:, 1542:: 1533:: 1524:: 1502:, 1495:, 1483:, 1477:, 1453:. 1446:. 1436:43 1434:. 1419:, 1409:19 1407:, 1365:. 1353:. 1334:. 1309:. 1300:. 1286:. 1282:. 1260:. 1251:. 1241:16 1239:. 1235:. 1208:. 1198:. 1184:). 777:. 665:}} 659:{{ 587:a 581:a 490:, 460:. 245:: 239:31 237:, 235:30 233:, 231:29 229:, 227:28 225:, 223:27 221:, 219:26 217:, 215:25 213:, 211:24 209:, 207:23 205:, 203:22 201:, 199:21 197:, 195:20 193:, 191:19 189:, 187:18 185:, 183:17 181:, 179:16 177:, 175:15 173:, 171:14 169:, 167:13 165:, 163:12 161:, 159:11 157:, 155:10 153:, 149:, 145:, 141:, 137:, 133:, 129:, 125:, 121:, 49:; 4569:( 4473:( 4457:( 4411:° 4394:( 4376:( 4358:( 4339:( 4321:( 4299:( 4283:( 4243:C 4241:/ 4239:T 4213:( 4185:° 4170:( 4154:° 4135:( 4111:° 4074:( 4059:( 4044:( 4036:. 4028:. 4021:. 4004:( 3981:( 3956:° 3916:( 3898:( 3868:( 3854:( 3820:@ 3783:" 3763:( 3748:( 3730:( 3645:( 3627:( 3608:( 3586:( 3521:( 3506:( 3484:( 3466:( 3452:( 3403:( 3389:( 3358:( 3338:( 3316:( 3301:( 3286:( 3268:( 3243:( 3225:( 3176:( 3162:( 3136:( 3089:( 3066:( 3051:( 3024:( 2983:. 2970:( 2950:( 2904:( 2882:( 2843:( 2835:/ 2812:( 2797:( 2778:( 2748:( 2669:( 2608:( 2578:( 2560:( 2546:@ 2535:( 2507:( 2465:. 2432:° 2408:( 2366:( 2354:) 2310:( 2295:( 2260:( 2245:( 2218:( 2200:( 2177:( 2090:: 1974:. 1947:) 1943:( 1835:. 1773:: 1649:e 1642:t 1635:v 1567:) 1491:: 1460:. 1442:: 1415:: 1372:. 1361:: 1338:. 1316:. 1294:: 1288:5 1267:. 1247:: 1119:n 1115:n 471:. 409:· 384:. 339:. 326:) 307:. 151:9 147:8 143:7 139:6 135:5 131:4 127:3 123:2 119:1 116:: 53:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.