Knowledge talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)/Archive 3

9403:

incorrect reporting) but whether the underlying health message is being conveyed successfully. The wrong message may be conveyed even if the reporting of the "new" story is accurate, because it is incompletely described, or is not placed in context with other research or health concerns. The statement that "Often these messages are delivered effectively" is actually the least convincing opinion in the article and she cites no research to back it up. Perhaps nobody questioned that the word "effectively" means "to have an effect". Public health messages are largely ineffective, and I'm sure there's lots of research on the subject. Indeed, newspapers are guilty of effectively spreading anti-health messages such as those from the anti-vaccination lobby, or over-simplistic messages such as the antioxidant theory encouraging the consumption of red wine, or waste-of-time-and-money messages such as the high coverage of many CAM "therapies". We must also remember that "medical news articles" with the highest readership are found in glossy women's magazines, tabloids, and television news. The author of that paper, along with the folk on this talk page, probably read a better quality of news than average.

3183:

secondary sources. Reviews are also sometimes very general, and when a review is general, it has to stuff a bunch of information in only a few pages. That means it gives it a light treatment -- just a sentence or two -- when sometimes we want to give topics a detailed treatment on Knowledge. Research articles tend to give focused attention to a particular line of research. Their introduction/discussion sections together often give fairly lengthy reviews of the topic. Scuro's example of areas where reviews are dated and research articles are recent is a good one. Eubulides suggests that we should only use such research articles if they "all agree", but that imposes an unrealistic burden upon those wishing to present well-sourced information on Knowledge. My suggested wording would be: "Research articles may provide secondary information on an area of research. Citing these research articles may be preferable if reviews on the topic are dated or too limited in scope." The concern, as always, is that one might cite some "fringe" research article for an overview of a topic. But this concern applies to reviews as well, and shouldn't invalidate citing good information.

7716:"Often these messages are delivered effectively by seasoned reporters who perform thoughtfully even in the face of breaking news and tight deadlines. But all too frequently, what is conveyed about health by many other journalists is wrong or misleading. Some distortion is attributable to ignorance or an inability to interpret and convey the nuanced results of clinical studies. And some is due to uncertainty about journalists' proper role: Is our job to describe the bigger picture, or simply to report what is "new"? Should we present black-and-white versions of reality that lend themselves to stark headlines, rather than grayer complexities that are harder to distill into simple truths? ¶ I believe that when journalists ignore complexities or fail to provide context, the public health messages they convey are inevitably inadequate or distorted. The news media need to become more knowledgeable and to embrace more fully our role in delivering to the public accurate, complete, and balanced messages about health. With some additional skills, care, and introspection — and a change in priorities — we can produce coverage more in line with our responsibilities." 1073:

freely available. The problem in RS of course is for the first when one deals with fringe medicine: the major alternative medical journals that have some pretense to science are included, the lesser ones and the frankly non-scientific are not. In practice, we have been using inclusion in Medline a criterion of at least possible suitability for citing in this topic when one wishes to cite a possibly rational approach--if one wishes to cite what people believe, the spectrum is of course much wider. Local non US/Canada journals can have a high standard, but this cannot be assumed--a rough check is whether they are included in Excerpta Medica, even though that actual database is not widely available outside major medical schools. And journals in any area of physical or social science or humanities can be relevant--an example is that the journals dealing with medical ethics are included in Medline; the general philosophical journals are not, though they may have articles on the subject of just as high quality.

9200:

interview in question as to whether of sufficient "worth" to warrent inclusion or not in the article. However that is not the same as confirming that the view is correct or supported by data that the (real-world) majority can agree upon (i.e. interest rate or exchanges rate might change but that does not lessen that Obama had the view, nor conversely override the fact that the economy really might not been helped). Newspapers (in this regard) confirm the truth of a person making a statement, not the truth of the statement made. It is for that proof of fact (rather than social commentary of opinions being held) that WP:MEDRS helps clarify sources that may be helpful. Likewise any number of newspapers can confirm that Prince Charles holds great belief in homeopathy, but that is not taken as proof or otherwise that homeopathy actually works (for which need peer-reviewed scientifically undertaken controlled ...etc etc), his views on some modern building architecture being a

6680:), by selectively quoting one of the few positive things it says about the popular press. The bulk of Dentzer's piece is critical of the press: this includes not only its title "Communicating Medical News — Pitfalls of Health Care Journalism", but also the topics of most of its paragraphs, ranging from "The news media need to become more knowledgeable and to embrace more fully our role in delivering to the public accurate, complete, and balanced messages about health." to "More broadly, a problem that is worsening in this era of the 24/7 news cycle is the frequent failure to put new developments into any kind of reasonable context for readers or viewers.". The piece's concluding two paragraphs lead with "In my view, we in the news media have a responsibility to hold ourselves to higher standards if there is any chance that doctors and patients will act on the basis of our reporting.", which pretty much sums up Dentzer's opinion. The existing summary in 4371:

review, but once challenged about removing a review, you have a dilemma. A review is an ideal source, the first question any wikipedian is going to ask is why remove an ideal citation? You will say, because it sucks eggs and they may very will say, no it doesn't. At that point you are snookered because there are little to no criteria/ comments about what makes a bad review. Time to take it up the ladder? Which rung? Hmmm...you could take it several places but the question becomes do they have the background to make a good decision? So you are thinking ahead, and steer it to the WikiProject Medicine talk page because you know there are a few smart cookies there who actually know there stuff. Does that solve your problem?..Perhaps but perhaps not. If you are lucky one of the smart ones gets involved...if not...? In the end ANY final judgement will be subjective based on the personal criteria that the judge(s) believe to be right,

11424:

used in newspapers, all the patients lobbies know them, and so does the financial world. What would help is to add a short descriptor each time they are first used in a article (for safety) (for possible effectiveness) etc. That will be enough to orient the person who first comes across these terms in an article. Our articles should be in line with serious respected opinion, yes, but they also extend into areas where there is not yet defined medical opinion. If the article is written properly the status will be clear. (My basic rule is if it is well enough known that people will come to look for it in a general encyclopedia like this, it belongs here, which is approximately equivalent to the General notability guideline for things that the general or specialized newsmedia cover--such as new drugs. I would include the publications of the major patient lobbies as responsible media.

3117:. Lets say there is an old review on a specific topic. Lets also say that there has been primary research done since then but no new review. Which is the better piece of evidence? Is the review still the better source or is the primary research better? How about another example. What if there are several reviews that state different things? Does the age of the review matter in such a case? Can the viewpoint of an older review be used for "minority opinion" if it conflicts with a recent reviews? How about if a VERY OLD review states something that several new ones don't even touch upon. Is that unique bit of information good or must we see that in context of what is known since then? Before you come up with your answers, here is another question...are the answers obvious to all? The guidelines could possibly miss these issues because they only focus on what is wanted from reviews. -- 12361:

general consensus of medical experts. It is no secret, for example, that certain therapies, supplements, and treatments do not provide the efficacy, safety, nor legitimacy that they claim. For example, today I went to the pharmacy and found that fully one-third of the products that were marketed as sleep aids were either homeopathic, naturopathic without claims being evaluated by a regulatory authority (sold as a "supplement"), or were downright lunacy (including one product which sold for $ 29.95 that consisted of a magnet attached to a strip of gauze that you were supposed to wrap around your wrist). I know that Quackwatch has articles on all of these products and names many of them by name. However, there are editors in good-standing here at Knowledge who would make the claim that Quackwatch is not a "good source" per MEDRS. The argument they give is for

4027:-This is what ICB does, but I think you are asking specifically about Knowledge. I agree that primary sources can also be biased and that I have personally seen many more examples of improperly referenced primary sources then reviews. Pragmatically speaking, it makes sense that reviews are better for Knowledge. Knowledge calls them ideal sources. The problem becomes the gray areas where unintentionally, or purposefully biased secondary sources have undue weight on wikipedia. These questionable or poor secondary sources would have little to no weight in academic circles because academics can easily separate the wheat from the chaff, not so for the bulk of Wikipedian contributors. There is a disconnect here. Wikipedian questionable SS have a life on wikipedia where they wouldn't within the academic institutions wikipedia sees as ideal. 4004:

someone, or a group of people interpret information there is always the possibility of unintentional or purposeful bias. MEDRS generally speaks to what makes a good source, there is little information to determine the quality of a source when one or more key characteristics fall outside of the parameter stated in MEDRS. ICB and I have both spoken to this issue of how to determine the quality of a source. You can fault what we have stated on several grounds, but we have attempted to make Knowledge a better source of information by coming up with criteria that weeds out poor and questionable sources. We have made an effort to fix a perceived fault with wikipedia. I'd like to hear if others agree that this gray area is a problem, and if so, can it be fixed?--

9819:; anyway, to get back on topic, I actually think Dentzer is being somewhat selectively cited, but the section is fine overall. One thing to keep in mind is that papers can sometimes be extremely technical; in those cases a lay summary is necessary. As far as OMM, I'm disappointed you didn't notice the major problems in the vitamin E section (not the least the statement that "initial hopes for OMM were based on observational studies" -- implying that mainstream, rather than OMM fringe, was responsible for the RCTs), and hopefully you'll comment the next time I bring it up. By the way, looking at Gann again, I'm not so impressed by the way he attributes the results of earlier studies to chance when they were clearly different populations. 9181:

reviews, once I've found which reviews mentioned them—I still find this aspect of WP:MEDRS unwieldy at times. Andreasen's interview doesn't give enough details on her findings; given that and the delicate nature of these studies, plus the inclusion of already published studies in the wiki article, I don't see why waiting for her latest work to get published is such a big deal; currently the article read "In first episode psychosis typical antipsychotics like haloperidol were associated with significant reductions in gray matter volume, whereas atypical antipsychotics like olanzapine were not. Studies in non-human primates found gray and white matter reductions for both typical and atypical antipsychotics.".

1517:

things one can research without using libraries. There are a few cases of purely electronic subscription-based services that are not available otherwise, and these might have some problems--the situation also occurs with some financial services and newsletters, especially market research newsletters, which are in practice not available to the public in any reasonable way. If these were proposed as references they would have to be individually considered--in some cases we might simply not regard the material as actually published or reliable. But journal articles, it does not make any difference--be sure to cite the printed version also, which you can get from the reference, or, if not, from PubMed.

5409:: "In summary at identical energy intake and similar substrate composition, the dissociated (or 'food combining') diet did not bring any additional loss in weight and body fat." Notice the "did not". They are saying "When we tried it, it didn't work". They are judged on whether their study was well designed, the data analysed correctly and the conclusions reasonable. They do not claim that "Dissociated diets (including those promoted by FFL) do not achieve weight loss greater than a balanced diet." A review might and it might cite that paper. It is for the review author to judge whether that study is compelling enough for him to generalise. 9743:, they hardly emphasize that the increased mortality occurred only at 400+ IU (27 times the RDA) and excluded the fact that at a meta-analysis found a non-statistically significant reduction in deaths at 100 IU. They also excluded the fact that meta-analysis was hesitant to generalize this to the non-elderly population. What they also don't mention is that, according to the latest NHANES, 90% of Americans don't get the RDA of 15 IU. From that perspective, basic vitamin E supplementation looks prudent, and indeed the ATBC trial found benefits for those with higher serum levels. Despite the issues with NYTimes coverage, it was added to the 4108:, which has nothing to do with rumor and innuendo. If they gave you a receipt at the store when you purchased something, and you present the receipt in a court case, that receipt is "hearsay", meaning (with lots and lots and lots of nuance and case history to make things complicated) "a statement that was made outside of the courtroom". A review is not direct testimony about what you personally did, saw, and heard yourself (that would be a report, not a review); if the review were given under oath in a courtroom instead of published in a journal, it would be considered "hearsay". It's not supposed to be an insulting term. 12370:

often, certain editors at Knowledge think PARITY means something like BALANCE. "Oh, the homeopath says this and this medical doctor writing for an on-line magazine that's not peer-reviewed says this. Obviously these are equivalent sources and should be treated as he-said/she-said controversy." No, PARITY just gives editors permission to find sources outside the normal channels when the claims themselves are made outside the normal channels (e.g. not necessarily referenced by PubMed). In such cases, we rely more on the reputation of the sources and evaluate their potential biases before using them as authorities or

12425:. In my experience CAM, while a big part of the problem, is not the whole problem; and furthermore, part of CAM is scientifically OK. With this in mind, it'd be better to adjust the phraseology of any proposal so that it does not focus on CAM, but instead focuses on antiscience, pseudoscience, fraud, axe-grinding, etc. Phrasing it in this more-general way will (1) apply more generally to problems in medical articles, and (2) avoid pointless arguments about whether this-or-that treatment is CAM. (Most chiropractors don't agree that chiropractic is CAM, for example; and aren't they the experts on what chiropractic 490:" - this actually discourages writing articles in my mind. I very rarely have access to the full text, and often am insufficient of an expert to judge an article based on the specifics of methods and statistical analyses. I've written many an article based on abstracts alone, and have received few complaints (but given the dearth of expertise on wiki, perhaps that says something about the system rather than my writing). An abstract should normally include the most salient conclusions, and generally any significant methodological flaws, or follow-on sources should raise these issues rather than editors. 821:. I think the differences should usually be trivial, possibly on a par with the difference between the PDF and HTML forms. But there is a risk that final editorial changes were significant. Where both are free, this implies that editors should be recommended to read and cite/link the journal's final edition and not include the "pmc=" version. If the PMC is the only free edition, but supports the text of the article, then I'd recommend using that. Does anyone know how much they tend to differ? It doesn't seem worthwhile to link to a paid-for version merely because it has had a final touch of copyediting. 9635:". Not only is it ungrammatical, it focuses on what is a secondary topic of Dentzer's article (lack of training) and misses her main point (lack of context in news articles). Also, it removes a "too often" that is an important point in Dentzer, and should be a point here. I agree with both Colin and Nbauman that this thread is focusing too much on Dentzer and too little on what the guideline should say. I frankly am dismayed by Nbauman's debate tactics on this talk page; they are not conducive to collaboration. Let's work out a change on the talk page first, and not edit-war the project page. 2247:

review. They are always hearsay. Reviews are easier to manipulate towards a biased point of view. I have also seen reviews from 25 years ago being used as citations. If reviews are a "state of the nation report" on our current understanding about a topic, then they should have a well defined shelf life. To me it just seems that reviews have been put up on a pedestal, that any review will be deemed as good by association to the designation of ideal source. This is the way most contributors see reviews, no matter what the quality. That is not reality, and this will cause problems over time.--

9600:"Other" means "those journalists not in the first set". The first set is defined as "seasoned reporters who have delivered messages effectively". The first set is not defined as "all seasoned reporters". For that, the author would have had to write "Seasoned reporters deliver health messages effectively." You are seeing (because you want to) an implication that strictly isn't there. However, I suspect Dentzer didn't worry about whether her statement would be logically analysed or mined for implications, because as I pointed out earlier, her use of the word "effectively" is careless. 4375:. Odds are that if you got 3 judges, they would not rule unanimously on the reason why a "gray area" review is usable or not useable. Use another 3 judges and you could very well have a different result. Go to wiki reliable resources page, and you could have a different outcome. Consistency and fairness could well suffer under the current approach. I do agree that you can't come up with a specific list of rules but I don't agree that you can't come up with some generalized guidelines that would make wikipedia a lot more streamlined, useful, helpful, and most importantly accurate.-- 13565:

Moreover in many areas of physiology research progress is so fast that field reviewing has shifted from review articles to the review sections that make up the introductory sections of research papers. In addition since the issue of consensus is not so important as advancing a field of research, where reviews are written, editors often allow what might be called position reviews in which a particular viewpoint is presented in the context of a general advocacy. This makes many secondary sources in physiology less reliable than many primary ones which only report research findings.

4078:

review is more likely to reflect consensus than an arbitrary primary source). I can only see two ways that editors can identify poor sources within a given category of source. Firstly, they can draw on their own expert knowledge (which WP does not require). Secondly, they can judge the source using the same criteria as any source for any subject. Other than discussing the types of medical literature, and their strengths and weaknesses, I don't see how MEDRS can help. If you think there's a "fault with wikipedia" in its inability to judge sources, then your first stop should be

7343:"In my view, we in the news media have a responsibility to hold ourselves to higher standards if there is any chance that doctors and patients will act on the basis of our reporting. We are not clinicians, but we must be more than carnival barkers; we must be credible health communicators more interested in conveying clear, actionable health information to the public than carrying out our other agendas. There is strong evidence that many journalists agree — and in particular, consider themselves poorly trained to understand medical studies and statistics.(Voss 2002, 4434:. We can bring this problem to a half dozen different spots on wikipedia and we won't get a consistent judgement, it' a complex thing and guidelines are sparse on what makes a poor review. Eventually if one party has unjustifiably been wronged by a poor judgement, the judgement may get overturned with another process by those who have the background to do so. That is if they would hear an appeal, a review is an ideal source you know. Can you see that how it now stands, there will be a lot of wasted time and frustration for anyone involved in challenging a review?-- 2262:

review or not. Being a review doesn't exclude the source from any other check recommended by MEDRS, WP:RS or WP:V. For example, a review in a journal of an organisation seeking to promote a particular POV might be dismissed for being a biased publication, as with any source. Even if the world was populated only with high quality reviews and high quality research papers, we'd still prefer reviews as sources. They are different beasts, and there are aspects of reviews that make them vital sources on WP, and those attributes are simply missing from primary studies.

2536:

what is not wanted. And as a contributor who deals with this sort of stuff issue on a regular basis, you inevitably hear, "you make up the rules as you go along". And what can a contributor say at that point? There is nothing to show what wikipedia doesn't want. So the newbie reasons if an ideal source can be 5-7 years old, then a review that is 10-20 years is good, and one 30 years is okay. It still is a review after all. We have newbie contributors who thus get turned off of the process of researching information and using wikipedia...just my 2 cents worth.--

9816:; the ATBC study (not covered) found benefits for moderate supplementation, and the meta-analysis found that "low-dose" vitamin E (still several times above the RDA) reduced deaths; the probability that it was due to chance was 20% -- not stat. significant, but not worth discarding either. Based on the literature, the article could also have reasonably been titled: "Extra vitamin E: Good in moderation". It was quite easy to come away from that article thinking that vitamin E is scary and dangerous. Further, the results of the meta-analysis were challenged 3612:

contributor determine what a bad "review" is. Are there not examples of reviews, or something that walks and quacks like a review, where the "peer review" is neither anonymous or independent? Consensus is not always an easy thing to achieve, especially when a majority of the contributors do not have the background to make an educated judgement. Couldn't a guideline based on a model such as this save countless wikipedian man hours and make articles more accurate? I agree that is not a simple task to determine whether an author is well known in his field. --

9945:

those primary sources done by nobodies, with no reputations to uphold, and (often) no serious review. So I find your concern about bias in the secondary-source authors to be a red-herring -- there is bias in the primary sources and there most certainly is often bias among wikipedians (which is undeclared, whereas conflicts-of-interest are declared in some sources). A medical book published by a serious publisher will have undergone some form of review. If you have found mistakes in a student textbook, perhaps you should contact the publishers.

2481:) to make the case that ECT causes brain damage. Never mind that no one uses devices from that time period currently. This may seem obvious to all of you that a 30 year old review would be highly questionable. But, not everyone editing wikipedia has the marked intelligence of those contributing to this thread. I say, spell it out. Granted there are exceptions for every rule, but a general guideline or two indicating what is not acceptable may be just as useful to the garden variety editor, as guidelines which state what is desirable.-- 1157:-- prohibits the editor from using any and all types of reliable sources for non-scientific information. It's only when you're talking about actual scientific facts, such as whether this molecule interacts with that molecule, or whether this medical sign is associated with that medical condition, that we're recommending that the editors rely on medical/scientific sources instead of, for example, a newspaper article written by a journalist that had never heard of the condition until he started the interview with a local patient. 5390:—an entry into a specialized encyclopaedia is a review, but it's a narrative one. You'd have to look in the book to see who was in the advisory board, i.e. who peer-reviewed the review. For anonymous peer-reviews, you don't even have that info and have to go by the journal's reputation. Someone may question whether an encyclopaedia entry like that is biased, question where the claimed scientific evidence is coming from, etc. Can you honestly say that the additional link to the primary paper cited in that case is not helpful? 1803:. If researchers want to write for Knowledge, they would be advised to choose the same type of sources as everyone else. Read the primary literature, sure, but read and cite the secondary literature on Knowledge, as a general rule. That's the way we can confidently say "X is a common cause of Y.(Smith 2008)". Editors using primary studies may produce horrible non-encyclopaedic prose like "An analysis of 200 patient histories for all hospital admissions in Essex for Y in 2005, showed X to be a common cause.(Jones 2006)" 11073:

is, even a single disagreement rules out the word consensus. It's interesting that you provided no argument. I think most medical editors would disagree with your opinion. Clinical trials are not common for a fair amount of things. I imagine that many interventions don't even get to Phase III clinical trials. Should we make a rule where we keep out all negative evidence? Suggestive epidemiological and animal evidence can be, and often is, encyclopedic -- so why would actual controlled human data be non-encyclopedic?

3272:. I think combating this sort of undue weight through restricting the citation of research articles is not right. If I felt like it, I could cite both recent reviews and research articles in decent journals which say there's a connection between thimerosal and autism. The argument would not be that these are original research, but that it would be "undue". Anyway, what do you think about my suggested wording above? I don't really like relying upon common sense in what is really a bureaucracy. People cling to rules. 13316:. For example, imagine a commentator writing something like, "This particular supplement relies on claims that contradict basic physiology." We can verify whether the author of the editorial is correct in his or her analysis and if the statement is a fact, simply referencing the commentary is perfectly fine - especially since many people write more clearly in commentaries and editorials than they do in academic articles. Likewise, I think that the "particular attribution" game is obviously being done as a way to 5430:

different to that used by FFL, only obese patients studied and not those merely overweight, etc). Therefore, someone could argue with the WP editor who cited it as to whether it is relevant. It really needs a degree of expertise to know if it is relevant, and on WP none of us are trusted as experts. Such arguments disappear if you just cite the Gale Encyclopedia. Assuming the Encyclopedia is considered reliable and written by experts, then we build on their expertise in judging the primary literature, not ours.

15022:

abstracts, so I suspect it to be even more the case for smaller meetings. The idea behind an abstract is that the authors will present their actual data in detail at the meeting and this will stimulate interest/discussion from the meeting audience. They aren't really intended to be a final record of scientific truth. In particular, any abstract which is more than a couple of years old and has not been turned into a full-fledged publication should probably be viewed with at least gentle skepticism.</OR: -->

31: 3101:. - as I understand it, the function of a review is to summarize what is known about a topic, at any given moment in time. MEDRS speaks of the review cycle. Renewal, is part of that cycle. New reviews are needed as our understanding about a topic expands. A review documents recent findings and then more research is done. It follows a cycle. Primary research can get dated by other research, BUT time is not inherently woven into the structure of research. That is a major difference. 2878:"This statement is more than five years old and is provided solely for historical purposes. Due to the cumulative nature of medical research, new knowledge has inevitably accumulated in this subject area in the time since the statement was initially prepared. Thus some of the material is likely to be out of date, and at worst simply wrong. For reliable, current information on this and other health topics, we recommend consulting the National Institutes of Health's MedlinePlus" 2894:

review is no longer a review. Time makes the review obsolete and it becomes archival history. This is clearly a time sensitive limitation that taints information and MEDRS states nothing about this. If wikipedia reflects societies current understanding about a topic, what are we doing romantically clinging onto the notion of a review as an ideal source, which allows scientific understanding from a generation or two ago, to meet little resistance from getting onto the page? --

12139:

Retro has pointed out some relevant topics in the regular RS archives, and I think they speak fairly clearly to the issue (though I haven't examined them or the surrounding discussion in detail), but I think it would be reasonable to address the issue here as well, as editors here are likely to have better knowledge of medical journals and I do not see any previous discussion of this journal in the MEDRS archives, where I think many people would expect to find it. --

4534:

likely to fit most cases. If we attempt to make it more specific, we will make it less useful, less applicable to any given situation, and more likely to have it misapplied. There will always be situations that are not covered by the guidelines: even if we list a hundred criteria, from "source of funding" through "authors' criminal record", there will be a case that is not considered. Editors must use good judgment! (I thought of this discussion when I read

10003:

always bear this in mind when giving and suggesting changes to guidance on sources. Much of research is done and reviewed by honest folk earnestly trying to work out why we get ill and how to fix it. It is just a little wearying to keep hearing that secondary sources are full of bias, written by hacks in the pay of 20 pharmaceutical companies, and that if you'll only let me choose, weigh and interpret the primary sources instead, then I'd do a better job...

511:, not by us, and if it's a serious flaw then very shortly after the original publication a qualification, retraction or criticism should be published by a relevant expert in a relevant field. Just my thoughts, grist for the mill, and I'm always delighted to see what the excellent contributors on MEDRS are going to do to destroy my wikiworldview this week. You know for the longest time I didn't know there was a difference between policies and guidelines? 10130:

they are older as you suggest! I would assume it is safe to cite the review part generally but not necessarily the hypothesis part (unless under an Hypotheses heading). Other papers of course will also contain large reviews within them and I suspect that is why they are coded as review? When a pubmed search is done for a subject with 'and review' included, these can be the only 'reviews' found, regardless of date, hence the need for clarification.

4549:. I will instead suggest this principle to you: if you can't articulate to other editors any reason for rejecting a secondary source that is more specific and more logical-sounding than "I don't like it", then you should not reject it. If, on the other hand, you can name reasons that seem reasonable, appropriate, proportionate, and consistent to both yourself and the other editors of an article, then you have very likely made a good decision. 10065:

aimed at medical professionals would be a better source, as would a relevant secondary article such as those you mention. Where you have several sources in disagreement then it may be relevant to note the disagreement among professionals within the article (as Tim suggests) or you could post a query on the article talk page or WP:MED talk page and ask for the opinions of others. You may find someone has access to a better definitive source.

8428:. The BMJ article reported that women who quit smoking before their 15th week reduce their risk of premature birth and small birth weight to normal. The Forbes story got a comment from another OB/GYN who pointed out some limits to the BMJ article's conclusions, such as the fact that the improved birth weight didn't translate into actual improvements in newborn health, and that it didn't tell whether pulmonary disease also returned to normal. 12378:

Having a clause or two in this guideline that lets editors know that mainstream sources which directly address controversial or problematic medical-related subjects can be trusted would be very helpful. The basic issue right now is that we go into great depth here discussing topics about which there exist a moderate to extraordinary amount of research. We need to accommodate those subjects which are more marginal -- dare I say -- FRINGE.

9324: 2982:

scientifically uniformed contributors? What will they think when they see "good evidence" from a review that is 10, 20, or 25 years old? A review is an "ideal source" after all. Isn't a goal of wiki to educate? When I read MEDRS I see that much of what is in that article is educational. The article tells how to determine what makes a good review. Why can't that same page also educate the reader about the chief limitation of a review?--

1196:(caption bill?) (I don't mean in the deliberate advertising sense, just logical structure) where the terms "science" and "scientific" get conjoined to medicine & medical, and thus the implicit claim that there are medical sources which constitute the scientific facts (not necessarily, in fact), and then the "non-scientific" - actually a vast realm of non-medical science and factual perspective (as sourced above). 6561:

ignore requests and direct the occasional persistent person to the publicity office. I know more who will only answer questions in writing. I even know one person that agreed to an interview on condition of proofing the story: She corrected the proof, and then had serious factual errors introduced by an editor. Of the people that have had their work written up in three or more popular press articles, I know

2152:, ect). An inflexible insistence upon reviews can therefore be harmful to lay readers, who often can't even access the full-text of the review to find out what that paper is basing its assertions on. In academia, citing secondary and tertiary sources is frowned upon for exactly this reason. It adds an extra step finding the real underlying data. Systematic reviews help to overcome this to problem to some degree. 15532:). So, is citing single sources saying "X said Y about Z" a good idea in this case, or an example of undue weight on an unproven, unaccepted hypothesis? In my mind an emphasis on secondary (i.e. review) sources in this case would neatly solve this problem. In this case I would say the facts were accurate, but still disproportionate. Perhaps this is a point to be made at WP:UNDUE rather than WP:RS... 13204:. I know of a number of journals which will essentially not publish letters-to-the-editor which are blatant mischaracterizations, for example. The peer-review may not be as rigorous as for a journal article, but there is a level of editorial control. I do not think that these sources necessarily correspond to self-published works. They are somewhere in between. This issue extends well-beyond MEDRS. 15561:

for MEDRS is given in the opening two sentences: "Knowledge's articles, while not intended to provide medical advice, are nonetheless an important and widely used source of health information. Therefore, it is vital that biomedical information in articles be based on reliable published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge." To me, a reasonable interpretation of this would be:

13091:

Notability guideline would be appropriate. Middle 8, who often does not see eye-to-eye with me seemed to think that the solution I had of simply saying that subjects which have poor sourcing are not notable is agreeable to him. So, I went ahead and added the last statement to illustrate that point. I'm not sure what else to do. I could remove the sentence but that will not remove the problem.

5313:

fact deriving considerably from his own experience/views to build on that study. And so on. It really is not our job to second-guess what the reviewer is doing with his sources. It is not the purpose of this guideline to teach editors how to criticise and analyse every point in a review paper. Friendly talk-page discussion on these finer points is great, but is really not expected of editors.

4338:. These are independent considerations. We reject low-quality sources whether they are primary, secondary, or tertiary sources. Editors can use their judgement to determine what counts as a low-quality source (in consultation with each other on the article's talk page); if there are specific problems, there are plenty of people willing to help here, at WT:MED, at WT:PHARM, or at WP:RS/N. 12527:

medical claims not supported by mainstream research, it is vital that third-party, independent sources be used. Sources written and reviewed by the advocates of such marginal ideas can be used to describe notable personal opinions, but extreme care should be taken when using such sources lest the more controversial aspects of their opinions be taken at face-value or, worse, asserted as fact.

12266:

readily available. Whenever writing about a claim about CAM practices, it is vital that third-party, independent sources be used. Sources written and reviewed by the advocates of CAM are excellent for describing their own opinions, but extreme care should be taken when using such sources lest the more controversial aspects of their opinions be taken at face-value or, worse, asserted as fact.

4430:. We can even agree that some characteristics of the review do not meet the characteristics of a good review while other characteristics do. What then, does that make it a bad review? Does that give us grounds not to use the review, or does it mean it is no longer an ideal source but is still a good source? What of the other gray areas? We can still both be working in good faith but now we 6979:) than the current text does. Dentzer's primary thrust, from its title to its conclusion (which is in its last 2 paragraphs), focuses on limitations and drawbacks of the popular press when reporting medical issues. The proposed text contains 13 words on the strengths of the popular press, and 6 words on its weaknesses, which is a seriously out-of-whack characterization of Dentzer from a 10087:, in my experience, is not 100% reliable in labeling reviews. Occasionally it labels an article as a review when it is not; more often, it fails to label an article a review when it is indeed a review. (If you can't tell whether an article is a review after reading the article, then you probably shouldn't be citing that article; reliable sources are not supposed to be so confusing....) 9229:(having edit conflicted with Xasodfuih) Yes Xasodfuih, I think one might use (not same as should include, for that is an editorial decission in writing a well rounded section) the interview to confirm her view, but it would need be clear then that a view of one person rather than an absolute fact (a subsequently submitted paper may be accepted, but could also be rejected by a journal). 6326:) writes that U.S. news articles are "often ... imbalanced" and that "We believe this imbalance may have a profound impact on the decision making of American consumers who rely on these news stories." Schwitzer goes on to say that "People may be misled, become anxious, or make ill-informed decisions based on" the kind of incomplete stories that often are published by news organizations. 15681:

effect. This whole idea of having a trump card up your sleeve to drag out when convenient without explanation doesn't work for me. In such grey areas, the editor citing MEDRS must be willing to define what elements of the content fall under MEDRS and also which specific aspects of MEDRS are breached. Otherwise it isn't a sound edit and it therefore doesn't deserve to stand. --

13074:

what course to follow. My own view is that RSs for the purpose of notability can include even the most absurd material, as long as they have sufficient prominence. Otherwise we are in the unfortunate position of calling quackery what it is, but only if it's moderately respectable, and not covering the worst of it., which I do not see as NPOV treatment of the subject in general.

10577: 8503:). In the vast majority of medical areas, Knowledge articles should focus on what's known reliably and reproducibly, and should avoid reporting the very latest studies, regardless of whether it cites the studies directly or cites news articles about the studies. Since news articles focus heavily on the latest studies, most news articles should be avoided for that reason alone. 5197:, often accompanied by a short commentary. Unless such summaries/commentaries add significant additional insight, citing them instead of the original review must be avoided because this practice can confuse the reader as to the actual review authors. If these summaries/commentaries are cited along the original review, label them clearly as summary/commentary in the footnote. 3712:

issue. The focus of a source is likely to be reflected in the extent of its use in an article. However, focus isn't a quality issue, which I think is WhatamIdoing's complaint. But the other issue, which I agree with WhatamIdoing, is that this guideline should concentrate on areas specific to medical sourcing, rather than sourcing any subject that has academic literature.

1276:

coverage but not about typical flaws in the medical literature). I don't see how it can be said that correcting those would necessarily make the guideline more complicated. And again I think it is unreasonable to now suggest that examples of problematic impact are required before something in the guideline can be changed (and I'm not thereby saying there aren't any).

5386:. So, it's the review authors, and the reviewers of the review that "approve" of us citing the primary source in that context (not wikipedian abc), and the reader can verify that chain of expert authority if he wishes (by looking in the review to see that indeed it cited that primary study we also cite in that context). Look for instance at the last sentence from 1725:

noted, quality varies from "crap" to "stunning brilliance". Yet, reviews are labeled as ideal sources. Newspaper articles could be more reliable then some reviews. If Knowledge is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, shouldn't the article, Reliable sources (medicine-related articles), have better guidelines for contributors to determine the quality of a review?--

13114:. The most major changes are to the title of the subsection (which I reworded to make it fit better with its sibling subsection titles), and to the lead sentence (which I trimmed heavily for focus), and to remove a footnote citation to Knowledge itself (which was a bit odd; that's what wikilinks are for; and anyway would be a pain to maintain the self-quote). 536:, you will see that we have engaged in a discussion lasting over a month, with an informal mediator, on the issues you bring up now. Please take the time to read through the reasoning of the participants. It has been very hard on us all and it would indeed be disappointing if it were all for nothing and we were to start over at square one. Regards, — 4086:. Article talk pages are the place where collaborative judging of sources should occur. And misuse of sources is a far bigger problem than the use of poor sources. Lastly, the readers of WP are reading second or third-hand information. Who would you rather "interpret information"? An anonymous WP editor or a scholar publishing in a scholarly journal? 1226:

biased, and if so how, or are you suggesting it doesn't matter? It's not necessary to sidetrack into trying to establish examples of institutional bias in order to address its presence in policies (and also, btw, in the favored citation template that doesn't accept DOIs & doesn't really seem to work with URLs, but only Pubmed IDs for articles).

5273:; I sometimes dismiss narrative reviews in crappy venues, and so should you, given that review journals easily get a higher impact factor than the rest. After all, this guideline does name some prestigious journals, so they're not all equal on the wiki, and I'd worry if they were. If the review is in a (much) lesser venue than the original, citing 5342:

equivalent. This is often manifest on WP when someone wants to prove a fact to the reader, they say "study X found Y". This isn't encyclopaedic. An encyclopaedia just says "Y". We state facts and cite reliable sources that back up those facts. We should be less concerned with whether those facts came from research paper A or papers B, C and D.

170:{{cite journal |author= Bannen RM, Suresh V, Phillips GN Jr, Wright SJ, Mitchell JC |title= Optimal design of thermally stable proteins |journal=Bioinformatics |volume=24 |issue=20 |pages=2339–43 |year=2008 |pmid=18723523 |pmc=2562006 |doi=10.1093/bioinformatics/btn450 |url=http://bioinformatics.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/24/20/2339}} 4707:

spotted, which I suppose comes from the nature of these papers, is that even if not describing previously unpublished research, they are often describing recently published research by the same author. I'd be concerned about possible bias if the editorial or peer review process was skipped, and the paper was merely an unedited opinion piece.

11522:

to the original author to retract his/her article. If that doesn't happen then obviously the letter writer might have a dissenting opinion but is not necessarily more right or wrong that the original author. Truth told, if you are talking about reviews, the review writers are usually chosen on merit, while letter-writers are self-appointed.

5614:

insight" or whether we might "confuse the reader as to the actual review authors". You cite what you used as a source. I don't have a problem with the last sentence proposed, but it seems a bit pointless to append a citation to a summary of the actual source used (the main review) unless the summary is open-access but the review is not.

9655:. This page is advice from Knowledge editors to other Knowledge editors. We don't need sources to "prove" that our advice is to use high-quality secondary scientific sources for statements of scientific fact, and we don't need to split hairs over the ideally and comprehensively neutral way to represent one person's published opinions. 3913:

in the field are unlikely to know. Since Wiki will never be written entirely by people who actually know the field, using only sources from peer-reviewed, respected, academic sources takes care of this. Why? Because only people who are leaders in the field have reviews published in these sources, whose editors are leaders in the field.

12824:, which owes its AfD survival to one (major) media article and a couple of PubMed-listed journal articles. But, as is typical for new dietary supplements, the scientific articles are all written by proponents (e.g., people employed by the manufacturer). Peer review does not turn a proponent into a third-party, independent source. 3777:- If a review gives us a synopsis of what we know at any given time, would not a 50 year old review be a historical document, instead of a living document like the updated NIH pages, or research which is not dated by function. Do you believe that a 50 year old review cited outside of it's historical context, is an ideal source? 10510:), but still "recommending" medical textbooks or high-quality reviews. The hardy folks that deal with fringe topics are not going to be happy to have anything that suggests that www.QuacksRUs.org is a good source for medical information. Perhaps a restatement of not using websites to debunk the literature would be in order. 2622:

it with, for example, a newer NEJM review which is available online and contains an incorrect definition of the condition! Blanket statements about dates aren't as helpful as statements that lend to editorial judgment; I think we can find a better way to phrase this, and don't recommend removing sources based on date alone.

4286:

a good idea to change your opinion on a topic. I think a much bigger problem on Knowledge is pages with no references or references to none scientific sources. The discussion of the quality of a review must take place on an individual bases on the pages talk page. What Eubulides has added is a good approach the discussion.

14735:, but it's not limited to medical subjects, and it doesn't have a cadre of editors who watch it who are specifically interested in RS issues. I agree that this talk page isn't really the proper venue, but until we establish a MEDRS/N, it's the closest thing available. When this door is closed, at least open another one. -- 3413:

instead of reviews. For example, in the scenario where a high-quality mainstream review was done last year, and more-recent research articles were put out by fringe sources, an editor could argue that the fringe sources trump the review. How about the following wording instead? It would be inserted after the 3rd bullet of

10679:. The reliability of these sources range from formal scientific reports, which can be the equal of the best reviews published in medical journals, through public guides and service announcements, which have the advantage of being freely readable but are generally less authoritative than the underlying medical literature." 2140:

the reviewer, who may not understand the science going on as well as the author. This can go both ways, but JFW has insisted that the author's credentials (ie publication history) doesn't matter as much as whether a paper is a review or not, or whether it's in a journal that's a household name even among laypeople (

5349:

and shows Z is true, and the editors of the journal that published the review also believe...." If you just cite primary study Y, all we have is "wikipedian abc thinks study Y is worth citing..." which isn't worth anything really. Secondly, and especially so for such an old study, we gain immensely from citing

11274:, but that is a failing of the popular press as well, so it's difficult to break free of it. On the one hand, whenever a new study piques interest and gets written up in the popular press, someone will reliably add a lengthy segment about that study to Knowledge. We should probably discourage this, because of 3483:-I like that better already. Not all reviews are equal. If we get beyond the ideal review and inform the reader of indicators that may demonstrate reviews further down on the spectrum, I think that is a step in the right direction...stuff like that would be helpful to me as an editor and I am sure to others.-- 2477:. But, what if a review falls outside of this parameter, which pragmatically speaking is where disagreement usually happens on the talk page. Are there guidelines that tell us when a review is clearly out of date? I remember a contributor getting rather heated because they wanted to use a 1977 review on ECT ( 5930:"All too often" is a meaningless term. In my experience, it's a term that people use when they don't have accurate figure. It's non-falsifiable. They could say that once is too often. In a book, magazine, or legal writing, editors strike out terms like that and send the writer back to get the actual figures. 15502:

WAID, I agree that review articles are journal articles, but the guidance provided here about review articles, textbook chapters and summaries by official bodies taking precedence over single pieces of research was a powerful revelation to me as an editor and struck me as being the best way to ensure

15001:

I'd deal with that by stating "John Doe, of The University of Exurbs, presented some preliminary research at the 2009 ASCB meeting in San Diego which suggested that K-Ras controls p53 ubiquitination." I'd only include it if this was vital to the topic and was a real breakthrough (you'd need secondary

14948:

Interesting, but no real consensus on a change... My understanding is conference presentations are essentially preliminary results that are "reviewed" by the presenters - you don't want to look stupid if you're wrong but you want to get your ideas out there (particularly if they are interesting). I

13446:

Critiques on possible problems of an specific study are also usually presented as letters to the editor; and as such I believe that are of specific relevance when presented in conjunction with the commented article; since the letter addresses possible specific problems of the first. Maybe it would be

12922:

and MEDRS. That would probably be the easiest way to go. In fact I bet I could find several "masters of objective science", or whatever, right here on WP who would agree that such an approach is an excellent, holistic approach to headache-prevention (not notable enough for an article, of course, but

12894:

is somewhat deceptive here considering the fact that this particular company has carefully collected the endorsements of credentialed scientists and medical doctors who they explicitly describe as "third party" while the truly "independent sources" are all anonymous internet commentators. It's almost

10064:

Any source that is rather general and broad (such as a student textbook) is likely to be inferior to a more specific book or paper. It may well have attempted to condense a complex subject with a simple explanation that is in fact wrong. This may be the case for your benzo textbook. A specialist book

9276:

It's also a bit odd to turn "volume of gray matter" into a "social issue". Mihai, please don't confuse "the reason I believe this" with "what I believe". A reduction in gray matter volume (or its absence) is a concrete, measurable, scientific fact. The conclusions that someone draws from this fact

8808:

If you're saying that the medical journals always make corrections while the newspapers don't, that's wrong. A pharmacist, Jennifer Hrachovec, was challenging the NEJM for at least 5 years on its Vioxx-VIGOR study, and Drazen refused to correct it. The WSJ, not the NEJM, published her complaints, and

8333:

On Knowledge, people use the popular media (particularly the BBC for some reason) as the source for statements in articles. I think it's acceptable to use the BBC, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, or other sources, if it passes the checklist that Schwitzer and others have offered that I linked to

8095:

Some popular news publications, and individual journalists, are reliable, while others are not. Science and medical reporters in major publications, such as Lawrence Altman of the New York Times, are usually reliable. Reporters who don't specialize in science or medicine, and reporters who must write

6370:

Some of you here may be medical doctors or its equivalent, but you don't understand journalism, and particularly medical journalism, at all. You don't know how it works. I wonder if you've ever spoken to a journalist about medical coverage, or called a journalist to complain when you saw a story that

6364:

relied upon another journalist. My job is basically to check the facts with the doctors who did the original research, and confirm with them that I understand their work correctly. And I would never depend on my own understanding of a published source. I would talk to the author to make sure I got it

6019:

The phrase in the cited article is "all too frequently". The editors of the NEJM didn't strike it out and "send the writer back to get the actual figures". The word "too" is the key and is a matter of opinion which can't be derived from raw data. In the opinion of the NEJM article writer, and most of

5465:

citing primary sources when a review cites only one or two primary sources; this will lead to massive overciting in Knowledge, and most of it will be unnecessary bloat. In a topic that is well covered by reviews, I prefer citing a primary source directly only if the study is worth discussing directly

4706:

Many of the papers describe themselves as reviews. I don't really have a problem with working out if the paper describes original research or previously published research. The concern I had was with spotting whether the paper had undergone the same scrutiny as conventional articles. One thing I have

3896:

WhatamIdoing's points above - Numbers 1 & 2 above - Your points seem to stem from a misunderstanding of what Consensus statements are. These are statements of position. Although they are good sources for a layperson to get an idea of where scientists stand, they are not evidence and should not be

3841:

automatically of lower quality than a paper that considers only the use of a single medication in a single type of heart disease for a single group of specially selected patients. These kinds of papers have different strengths, but neither is actually worse than the other. A good general literature

3765:

3. I'm not entirely sure what this means, but academic sources are not necessarily the best. I would not necessarily elevate the work of a university-based researcher over the work of an intramural NIH researcher simply because the one holds a post at a university and the other holds a post with the

3711:

of all studies of drug X on condition Y is no wider than each of those studies. On the other end of the spectrum, a review could attempt to summarise our understanding of an entire medical condition, or aspects of a whole medical speciality. I don't disagree with you noting that focus is a "spectrum"

3692:

If you see more errors or misleading items, point them all out. We can't deal with the unknown. I'm no expert here but as I know it, if the focus of analysis is on a very narrow question, then they wouldn't call it a review, now would they? That would make your comparison between "broad" and "narrow"

3064:

I'm saying that out-of-date sources is a general problem that isn't medicine-specific. Let's try to focus MEDRS on problems that are specific to this area. This issue you raise isn't "irrelevant" and it sounds like your example is a genuinely problematic use of old sources -- but that isn't a problem

2621:

Good use of sources requires editorial judgment and an indepth knowledge of the topic. I've read almost everything of significance written about Tourette syndrome in the last 12 years, and if a five-year-old review is still a top notch, accurate, well written review, there's no reason for me replace

2356:

I'm not sure that I'd bother looking for outdated reviews, because that's every bit as much of a problem with primary sources as it is with secondary sources. But examples of low-quality and promotional reviews, especially if there are actually good primary sources on that point, would be desirable.

2223:

Here, the goal is not to find out the Truth™. It's to find out what is currently "known". We're writing an encyclopedia. That means that we are assembling and summarizing the state of human knowledge. Secondary sources are the best way to do that. That's why the entire encyclopedia (and not just

2200:

Abstracts. Editors without access to the paper's full text can often glean something from the abstract in a research paper. The abstract of a review often gives away only the scope. Some of the comments above pontificate about methodology or quality but many primary studies are cited by folk who have

1724:

I've never been a fan of primary sources in wikipedia medical articles. Furthermore, like the vast majority of wiki users, I don't have the skills to, "evaluate the validity of the findings firsthand". On the otherhand do the vast majority of users have the skills to judge the quality of a review? As

1183:

I understand that intention regarding the press, and I'm not talking about deprecating. Those aren't my words, they're quotes from sources. I don't think the lack of a more comprehensive guideline to help editors find/assess sources is irrelevant. The real problem is that this guideline frames itself

482:

My apologies if I've stepped on your toes Eubulides, I've made some other adjustments to the text to place more emphasis on the reliability over the accessibility (I feel very strongly that this is the best way to write an article). If people disagree, then please go ahead and revert to the original

15680:

is when some editor justifies that his revert or whatever is "because of MEDRS", but when you ask a perfectly reasonable Q such as "what aspect of this content breaches what specific aspect of MEDRS", the editor doesn't give a direct reply and instead just repeats "it's MEDRS silly" or words to that

15644:

Sorry, but I'm afraid that things are not as black-and-white as the previous comment suggests, as it's not always the case that "material" is clearly biomedical or clearly non-biomedical. Furthermore, in controversial areas like CFS and AIDS it's even more important than usual to employ high-quality

15629:

which is also both an medical subject and also has social and other aspects, editors in the past have successfully argued to exclude RS material because it falls outside MEDRS. Of course we should exclude biomedical on MEDRS criteria, but for non-biomedical content RS and not MEDRS should apply. --

14236:

be in the business of evaluating primary studies, because this guideline instructs us to do that. If you do not stop to figure out what kind of paper you're looking at, you'll treat an outdated narrative review of three case studies as being far more reliable than the a recent very large randomized

13684:

is a tricky issue. Journal editors obviously feel that such potential conflicts of interest are relevant (as do most journal readers) - hence the disclosure statements accompanying articles. However, if we translate that onto Knowledge, it's grossly disproportionate to give one sentence to a study's

13338:

SA, I think you and I would do the same thing in practice. My concern is primarily about citing commentaries and letters as "facts" when you can't find a better source because no better source exists, not when you're thinking that any source is probably good enough. For example: I'm worried about

13090:

Well, give us an alternative. We've outlined scenarios where the independent and most reliable sources are clearly not going to look superficially as reliable as the ones that Knowledge would identify as such. I remarked myself that I'm not sure what to do with such claims and pointed out that a new

13052:

medical claims where little to no reliable research has been conducted about the efficacy, safety, or legitimacy of the statements made by proponents. In such cases, reliable sources may be much more difficult to find and unreliable sources can often be more readily available. Whenever writing about

12790:

12526:

12369:

does not seem to sink in, and often people seem to think that PARITY means something it does not. To wit, parity of sources is supposed to allow for leniency in sourcing mainstream opinion about fringe ideas. Synergistically with WEIGHT, the idea is to be able to write NPOV with proper sourcing. Too

11521:

Letters are usually not peer-reviewed, but the editor of the journal employs some form of discretion as to what gets published. It is very unusual for a letter writer to completely uproot the premise of a publication, and if that is the case then the editor will not have any alternatives but suggest

11423:

Even early and inconclusive trials can have major implications for the companies. If even a phase I/II trial is reported outside the scientific journals, we may need to cover it. The terms need to be used in individual articles. They're the exact descriptors, and people know them--they're now widely

10360:

As a possible citation, I recently saw a journal article which evaluated the content, quality, and accuracy of the material contained in various university-sponsored press releases. Needless to say, it was abysmal. Maybe someone else has this article at hand; if not, I'll track it down. I do tend to

10129:

Thanks multiple specifics, but in general I have also noticed that some papers say for instance an hypothesis, will on reading be largely a review of the relevant literature with a much smaller expansion of the hypothesis. Such papers are often listed as a review, but may not be tagged such, perhaps

9545:

Four statements: There exist seasoned reporters who have delivered messages effectively. There exist other journalists who have conveyed wrong or misleading information. Wrong and misleading information is conveyed by inexperienced journalists. Wrong and misleading information is not conveyed by

9272:

I'm concerned about Mihai's 'story' here. The discussion on the article's talk page is reasonable and making progress. MEDRS was cited as one example of a policy that says the amount of attention stuff gets in Knowledge is based on the amount of attention they get in print. It's a bit odd to turn

8365:

Why not go straight to the original journal article? For many reasons. First, most news stories are accessible to the public, while most peer-reviewed journals are not. Several million people read the New York Times. JAMA has a circulation of about 300,000. Second, it's easier for a Knowledge editor

7314:

This is a misleading summary of Dentzer. Dentzer never says either "specialist" or "generalist", or anything like that. Her main point is news articles' "frequent failure to put new developments into any kind of reasonable context for readers or viewers". She also mentions lack of training, but that

7229:

I think it's ironic that the people who fault the popular press for not reporting the medical literature reliably, are themselves deliberately distorting the medical literature to support their own prejudices and attribute a view to the author that she doesn't state or believe. But that's what makes

6251:

Please can you cite the study in the "peer-reviewed literature" that concludes that newspapers are consistently accurate in their reporting of health issues? We need "consistent accuracy" for a type of source to be judged "reliable", not the odd example of outstanding journalism. My "prejudices" are

5650:

I find it useful to cite summaries of reviews, for the same reason I find it useful to use |laysummary= when citing journal articles: the summaries are often far more readable than the full report, and this will help the typical Knowledge reader. In the dentistry example that I believe prompted this

4651:

The first International Symposium on Dietary Treatments for Epilepsy and Other Neurological Disorders was held in Phoenix, Arizona from April 2–5, 2008. This supplement comprises a summary of presentations at the symposium, describing advances in dietary therapies for epilepsy from both clinical and

4285:

So what you are trying to figure out how to "challenge a review" or suppress the use of a review as a reference? If it is out of date then a newer review could be used. You could find another review that says something different and juxtapose the comments to provide balance. Otherwise it might be

3912:

Number 6 - The public's knowledge of a researcher is not a measure of a scientist's expertise and I don't believe that anyone suggested that it was. Scientists know who the leaders in their field are (even if they all think they are included in this group). It's true, though, that people not working

3873:

Your first three points appear to be based on not knowing what a review is; your second three points are both wrong and not specifically applicable to reviews. There might be a useful way to educate the inexperienced editor about how to identify good sources, but IMO this list is not actually going

3448:

requires. I would not want to see this guideline being used to remove text sourced, for example, to an NHS page or a reputable charity information page, merely because it wasn't a review in a peer-reviewed medical journal. While an editor without access to medical journals is unlikely to achieve FA,

3412:

Re the proposed wording "Research articles may provide secondary information on an area of research. Citing these research articles may be preferable if reviews on the topic are dated or too limited in scope.": this gives too much leeway in the troublesome direction of editors citing primary studies

3388:

These are guideline for writing a comprehensive medical article, not just for those parts that are contentious. To that end, a systematic review is often not "better" (in terms of usefulness, not quality) than a literature review, because its scope is very narrow. They are very good at what they do,

3145:

For all your examples, the answer is, "it depends". In your first example, if the review is quite old and says X, and if reliable primary studies since 2006 all agree on not-X in their previous-work sections (because of new evidence that came out in 2006), then the article shouldn't claim X and cite

2261:

Can you give some examples of reviews in a quality journal that "manipulate towards a biased point of view"? And why should you think this is "easier" for a review than for a research study? We already recommend against using old sources, so 25 year-old sources would be unlikely to be a good source,

1917:

If you are not able to evaluate your OWN sources, then you should not be contributing to the Wiki entry in the first place. If you are unable to evaluate the sources of other contributors (either yourself or with the help of someone with more expertise in a topic), then you shouldn't criticize it.

1831:

Here's the problem with the arguments given by Eubulides & Colin: The goal here is to produce an ACCURATE Wiki entry, not put together a list of "further reading"! How easy a work cited is for the audience to evaluate is entirely IRRELEVANT. Citations are evidence that supports a statement made.

1160:

Can you give me an example of a real problem? For example, can you type up an example of something you'd like to include in an article, with a non-scientific source that you'd like to cite, but which you think is deprecated under this guideline? Or are there no actual problems in practice, but you

1076:

But this does not say anything about availability: many less-developed worlds journals are available open access, hough not in Medline. and many that are do not have even the abstracts freely available--this is particularly true for review articles. and I hope everyone realises that many open access

15485:

I would like to add one point: PST should be judged not just by what type of source it is, but by what facts are being drawn from it. For example, any source can be a primary source for some piece of information (like the fact that so-and-so published such-and-such and when). Any discussion on PSTS

14730:

At least we all agree that this talk page shouldn't be used for that purpose, but when the other places say to come here, and the RS noticeboard is often useless for this purpose, we're left with the need for a WP:MEDRS/N. What should be done? It's frustrating when an obvious need is being ignored.

14395:

The words "publisher" and "author" are not in the section, but the topic of publishers is mentioned when the section talks about "popular press or a peer-reviewed medical journal", and the topic of authors is raised when the section talks about "expert committee" and "respected authorities". I take

13560:

Medical articles can potentially affect people's medical treatment and health decisions. It is therefore important that all treatment related information in Knowledge is not only reliable but also has medical consensus. Thus they should be based upon not only upon primary sources but also secondary

12534:

But there are times that sources may contradict the mainstream science that Barrett references, or may hedge where Barrett is plain, or might avoid issues Barrett handles directly. In such instances, Barrett is clearly the superior source, and particular attribution to Barrett as though his opinion

11329:

section already comments on evidence-quality rubrics, and perhaps advice about phase I/II trials could be folded into there. However, that section is already problematic, as it simply gives rubrics for assessing evidence quality, without making it sufficiently clear what the rubrics are for. When I

9927:

That's kind of a long question, and it sounds like this is really more of a question about a particular case, but in general the answer (I think) is that peer-reviewed sources are generally (although not always) preferred. Conflict of interest is of course an important issue, but in practice almost

9199:

Mihai cartoaje, as you rightly say newspapers per overall WP:RS can be used as in this example to confirm a social aspect, namely that a person holds a view (likewise if the President states he thinks the economy will be helped by an action) although I do not know enough about that person & the

7758:

But I think we should also help Knowledge editors to figure out which popular press articles are likely to be accurate and which are likely to be wrong. Dentzer made the point that experienced medical journalists are often accurate. I think that point also belongs in the guideline. Don't you agree?

6825:

I think that our advice lines up with the main thrust of Dentzer's piece, but I also don't think it much matters. The advice from Knowledge editors, to other Knowledge editors, is still the same: avoid using the popular press as your sole source for a medical or scientific fact. Our advice would

6466:

I have a good sense of how accurate newspaper stories are, because I often use newspaper stories as part of my research, and when I talk to the investigator I ask him whether the newspaper story about his work was correct. Some are, some aren't. Some newspapers, like the Wall Street Journal, have a

5782:, i.e. label summaries as summaries, don't substitute them for the actual review when the summary is written by other authors because it can lead to confusion. Parenthetically, "laysummary=" is not a good choice if the summary has a PMID, but I think this is obvious enough that I didn't mention it. 5460:

I don't think anybody's objecting to the practice of citing primary sources on occasion alongside a review; the disagreement is more on how desirable and often this should be done. I agree with Xasodfuih that there are some cases (a weak 3rd-party commentary which cites one strong systematic review

5312:

Your opening analysis (multiple sources vs single sources to make one point in a review) is over simplistic. Sometimes an author cites several studies because all those studies confirm the same point. No synthesis is involved, merely weight of evidence. Sometimes an author cites one study but is in

4678:

Thanks, JFW. Just so I'm clear, you are saying these "mini-reviews" are conference presentations (and not reviews, based on earlier conference presentations). If I hadn't read the introduction to the supplement, I wouldn't be aware of the conference aspect and would just think this was a supplement

4533:

I do not think that what you want is possible. There are far too many variables to provide a comprehensive list that would work in every single instance. Sometimes editors have to use their best judgment instead of mindlessly following a checklist. We have already provided general advice that is

4493:

contain accurate/truthful/correct statements. Being reliable means that one can take their statements on trust, depend on them and reasonably hope not to be disappointed. Do you see the difference? Since this is the encyclopaedia anyone can edit (anonymously), we can't expect or trust editors to be

4406:

That's exactly what I was going to ask: How do you know that it's a low-quality source? And why the heck can't you just give your specific, exact reasons for the specific, exact source? If you have solid, specific, concrete reasons for believing any source to be low quality, then you should give

4370:

Yes James, I do come across crap reviews as I edit, and I believe all crap citations should be removed. They diminish the quality of wikipedia. I don't believe that one should "juxapose" good reviews with bad reviews to provide "balance". So James, you go about your business and you remove the crap

3420:

In a lightly-researched area lacking recent reliable reviews, it may be possible to summarize non-review sources; however, extreme care should be taken, as these sources often tend to focus narrowly on one subtopic to the exclusion of alternative theories, and it is all too easy when combining this

3182:

and I (among some others) made earlier. There's nothing about a review per se which makes its conclusions more reliable than the conclusions of a research article. Reviews are less common than research articles, so they can be dated. And research articles are not just primary sources, they are also

2996:

Because age isn't the "chief limitation of a review" any more than it is an aspect to consider for any source, be they primary research papers, books, newspapers, etc. Please credit our "scientifically uniformed contributors" with some common sense. I think this "issue" has been discussed enough.

2377:

Clear guidelines regarding date parameters for reviews would be helpful. It would hopefully give weight when discussing this issue when complaining about an "old review" on an article talk page. I find that editors often don't seem to consider the "best before" date when using reviews as sources.

2139:

She didn't really hit upon one of the biggest problems with reviews in the context of Knowledge. That is, one can cite a review which actually cites one or two little articles. Also, as she hinted, the reader doesn't get the straight facts because the paper is perceived through the possible bias of

2059:

I agree with JFW's remarks on reviews. Secondary sources aren't perfect, of course, but they're better than the alternative of relying only on Knowledge editors' judgment. Moreover, we have a Knowledge policy that prefers secondary sources like reviews to primary sources like reports of experiments

1305:

Is the issue that these guidelines are biased in favor of the medical literature? Press reports are used for sources in medical articles by well meaning editors. An explanation of why news reports are not good sources for medical statements addressed that frequently found problem. To get into flaws

893:

Wow. I've never seen that happen before in an article, never mind a guideline page. I asked "Does anyone know how much they tend to differ?" and and within a few hours an editor has responded (effectively) "Well, actually I'm a expert on this topic and here's the freely available published/reviewed

15587:

So for example the statement that "Actor X is HIV positive" is making no medical claims about HIV, so MEDRS does not apply here (though there is a host of other policies and guidelines which do govern the inclusion of such content). If this is not the case then we need to tighten up the guideline

15560:

I am likewise concerned about the application of MEDRS but for the converse reason, and that is the editing policy of some editors to classify article X as a "medical article" and therefore treat any information as falling under MEDRS at their convenience. As far as I can see the scope definition

14890:

ProtonK was unwilling to discuss the issue "My first suggestion is to ask at WT:MEDRS", Irbisgreif didn't help at all, ScienceApologist was more interested about truth than verifiability, Garrondo was supporting his POV, "2/0" didn't found appropriate to discuss how it should be used "Whether the

14376:

Perhaps I'm missing something obvious, but I can't find the words "publisher" or "author" anywhere in this section. I see nothing in these two paragraphs that is unrelated to figuring out whether or not a given claim is based on high-quality data -- from "meta-analyses" at the top of the scale to

14357:

section, but it's not that much more important than the section's other points. The section also mentions systematic reviews (at the same level as meta-analyses), narrative reviews, and clinical experience, and none of these fit into the narrow rubric of "study". As for the technical definition of

13591:

currently says in its title that it's about "medicine-related articles", in its nutshell that it's about "biomedical articles", and in its lead that it's about "medical articles" which are a "source of health information", and later that it's about "medical and health-related articles". The intent

13109:

has a story on the latest unsupported medical fad, then I'm sure we'd all agree that it is a high-quality source (even if the fad is unsupported). Conversely, if the only 3rd-party sources on a medical fad are anonymous blogs, I'd be leery of covering the fad at all. In between, there are judgment

13069:

of fringe theories are independent sources." Sources written and reviewed by the advocates of such marginal ideas can be used to describe notable personal opinions, but extreme care should be taken when using such sources lest the more controversial aspects of their opinions be taken at face-value

12803:

11440:

I dunno, I just now searched Google News for "phase II clinical trial" and found that almost all news sources that used that phrase were press releases, stock tip sheets, and other similarly unreliable sources. Knowledge medical articles are not the right place to pass along this kind of material.

11072:

shows ("there is longstanding consensus not to include phase II trials unless their results are absolutely earth-shattering"). You probably won't be surprised that I don't share this "consensus". Considering that consensus means general agreement within a group, and considering how small our group

10002:

This guideline covers the whole of medicine. Drugs and the pro/anti-pharma controversy is really a small part. Folk get worked up about conflicts of interest and bias when much of what we should be writing about on WP, and pushing towards FA, is bread-and-butter non-controversial medicine. We must

9944:

Don't overplay the "independent" aspect of secondary sources. The aspects of secondary sources we like are that they are written by experts and they have undergone some form of expert review (peer or editorial). When wikipedians choose primary sources we end up with the selection & analysis of

8957:

Any summary necessarily omits some of the summarized text, but that doesn't mean that it's misrepresentation. Your proposed changes would make the text a less-accurate summary of Dentzer, and would not be improvements. Improvements to the text are possible, but this discussion has beaten the topic

8763:

I agree with Colin, the popular press needs to be used with care and never as the sole source for a fact or figure. The argument that because experienced and scrupulous journalists often get their stories right, so all news stories should be acceptable as a sole source in medical articles does not

8690:

But a surprisingly large number of doctors get their medical news from the New York Times. (They look up the journal articles as necessary, and sometimes it isn't necessary.) Several reporters have a particular reputation for accuracy. Lawrence Altman is an MD, and he knows MDs read his work. Gina

6526:

That's all consistent with my main point: There is good scientific data, published by authors like Schwitzer, in the academic peer-reviewed journals, the standard you profess to follow, that newspaper accuracy is more complex than you claim it is, and that many newspapers cover medicine very well.

6400:

So you always reject a journalist's summary or interpretation for this purpose in your professional work, but you think that we should encourage editors to use a lower standard than the one you yourself use. A newspaper article isn't a good enough source for scientific facts for you, but you keep

5804:

I think Xasodfuih has it right--There are two types of these--one is where they simply reproduce the abstracts from the original paper, as the authors of the paper wrote them. (as is the case for the abstracts in PubMed, and many other services). This can be a convenient source of information, but

5348:

It is far better to cite the review by X rather than the study of Y in the example you give. When you cite the review, we gain "review author X (an expert) believes study Y is worth citing and shows Z is true, and the folk who peer-reviewed the review (also experts) believe study Y is worth citing

5187:

When a statement taken from a narrative review is supported there by only one or two original research articles, it's recommended to cite both the original work(s) and the narrative review, especially if the original articles were published in higher impact venues than the narrative review. Citing

4425:

I would make a subjective judgement about the review. Would it be done any other way by any contributor?...unless wikipedia had guidelines? That is how all judgments are made in wikipedia on reviews, even at wikiproject Medicine. There is nothing objective to hang your hat on. Back to our example,

4077:

Scuro, it would really help your cause if you avoided loaded terms like "hearsay" (which is more than just "second hand"; it implies "inadmissible") and examined your own writing for bias (such as repeating the possibility that a review introduces bias, rather than the normal case which is where a

3821:

ideal sources for what is understood today. Once again, this issue is also not specific to either medicine or to reviews. Fifty-year-old primary research papers are also dramatically limited in their utility in exactly the same manner. It would be stupid to single out reviews for concerns about

3756:

published documents cannot be used anywhere on Knowledge for any purpose. Presumably this is meant to read "self-published". However, consensus statements by major organizations or government guidelines are generally considered to be self-published and are still great sources. Thus this proposed

2448:

The guideline is clear IMO. In addition, I see no issues raised that are specific to reviews. In other words, if one reads this guideline in conjunction with other sourcing guidelines and policy, there doesn't appear to be a problem that needs to be fixed. Remember these are just guidelines. There

1541:

It is a difficult issue. Quite often the results of journal articles are taken out of context and used in a misrepresentative way in an article. I find this commonly in the use primary sources in medicine-related articles, but also with review articles when I have access to the original. I do not

1122:

The above points about non-medical journals/articles potentially being relevant (whether or not indexed on medline, and even if they are they may also be accessed/linked via a non-medical database) seem to question how this guideline can legitimately only refer to medical journals/textbooks in the

15506:

Colin, I also agree. However, there's a vast gulf between "X said Y about Z" and "There is general agreement that A is the cause of B". Like reporters "balancing" views on vaccination with notorious deniers and celebrities, by reporting "X said Y about Z" it gives significant weight to the idea

15481:

You'd be surprised how inexperienced and wrong many contributors to policy talk page discussions can be. Please, the more of our brightest and most experienced medical editors who offer help tweak and keep an eye on those pages, the better. It can be a hard battle but if we let folk undermine our

13073:

i can't say I understand the intent of the last sentence. AIs it saying we have two equally valid choices, 1/ to use such sources as there are in a way that makes the limited reliability clear OR, at our option, 2/not cover the topics entirely? IUf so, I don't see it as giving much guidance about

12878:

who they explicitly call "objective third party scientists". The infomercial describes the supplement as "The Mental Edge" and offers a guarantee that Procera AVH will "eliminate brain fog, mental fatigue and forgetfulness." Looking for sources on this particular product I find mostly promotional

12377:

To be clear, most of the products I saw at the pharmacy do not have Knowledge articles and are not directly mentioned anywhere in the encyclopedia. However, we need to think about what happens as these articles do get written: and eventually, unless Knowledge goes belly-up, they will get written.

12138:

In terms of the current debate over Medical Hypotheses, while I'm currently in dispute resolution with Retro on other issues, I consider myself to be neutral on this particular topic in that I am not involved in the addition or reversion of the material, nor do I have an opinion on its validity.

9481:

I don't know about Eubulides, but I would not agree with the statement "doctors all too frequently murder patients". What a ridiculous example. Nbauman, you are seriously in danger of self-highlighting the sort of misunderstanding and misreporting of statistics that we are criticising journalists

8942:

The problem is that the text we are editing misrepresents the sources that it cites in its support. I believe the text of the policy would be improved if it did not misrepresent the sources. I've given specific and concrete examples of how it misrepresents the sources, and how it can be improved.

8487:

properly warns against. People in many fields get their first reports about notable results from the newspaper, but there's a huge difference between being alerted to a new event, and getting an accurate, authoritative, and in-depth study. It's fine if my doctor hears about a new drug trial first

6560:

spoken with investigators on this subject. I know a few that simply refuse all interview requests after getting burned with egregious errors (like "We have isolated a new compound that might have interesting biological effects" being turned into "New drug will be on the market soon"): They just

5613:

The issue that affects this guideline is whether such journals or such summaries of reviews are reliable sources. I'd be interested to hear what folk think about that (some examples of those journals/papers would be useful). It is irrelevant as to whether such articles "add significant additional

5404:

Both the primary research and the review could be published in the Lancet for all I care. They are different kinds of sources and the former is much weaker for our purposes. The secondary source (review) generally widens the scope of the conclusions and assesses it against any similar studies, if

4003:

Going beyond the issue of what exactly is a review, I agree with what ICB states. A review is hearsay as is even a consensus statement. Why is that point important? Because while these sources can generally be excellent references for wikipedia, they can also be poor or questionable sources. When

3900:

Number 3 - To echo Scuro, "source" refers to publication, not author. Most NIH, NIMH, & NSF work is completed by university researchers. These agencies fund research through grants, which are distributed by a committee made up of experts in the field to which the grant money is allocated. The

3308:

ImperfectlyInformed, you've made this point over and over, and I continue to disagree that the "introduction" and "discussion" sections of research articles should be put on the same level as review articles. They tend to be focused particularly on information directly relevant to the topic under

2942:

A review stays a review, even if it's a hundred years old. It does not quit being a review when it gets out of date. It does not magically transform into primary research, or into tertiary summaries. It remains a review. What it quits being is a good source for current information. These are

2916:

That's a nice little tidbit Jmh, it might even have some merit but your wrecking my train of thought here. I am talking about reviews in general, and specifically about how wikipedia MEDRS makes no mention about one of the chief weaknesses of reviews. Over extended periods of time they can become

2600:

On further reflection, I'd be happier with a more general statement. "Avoid older reviews" could be (and should not be) interpreted as "Delete the 1985 review, and add in the 1983 primary paper that the review cited favorably." What we want is more along the lines of "Just because it's a review

2535:

Perhaps if I used the term "update" the guidelines, that would be more palatable. I did read that section, WAID. It could be clearer. What happens with a review of say 10 years? 20 years? 30 years of age? There are no guidelines there. The section tells us what wikipedia wants. It doesn't tell us

2082:

The "pond I'm fishing in", is that all reviews are not equal, yet wiki makes little distinction about the quality of reviews. You can have a "crap" review not worth much more then the cost of toilet paper, yet under current guidelines it may be considered an ideal or near ideal source. That ain't

1688:

The problem with primary sources is their relative impact. Reviews are excellent in separating chaff from corn; they string together the findings from primary sources into useful theories that can then be tested. In diseases where numerous hypotheses exist, review articles can balance the various

1306:

in the medical literature, methodological or whatever, is a huge topic unto itself. The guidelines do address possible misuse of medical literature by distinguishing between primary, secondary and tertiary sources, as well as stressing the importance of using recent sources, review articles etc. —

1225:

No it's not about potential misunderstanding of what the guideline says, it's bias in what it actually does state - which several editors in various ways have repeatedly identified over a long period of time now and which I've again tried to outline and source above. Are you disagreeing that it's

12937:

Okay, I added a sentence to that effect. It mentions the possibility that poor independent sources can be used as an argument against the notability of the subject. This has potential revolutionary implications, but I am more-or-less confident it is the right mood since Middle 8 and I both agree

12835:

that any research that is even slightly favorable is unacceptable because only money-grubbing surgeons that perform ETS write papers about it -- the fact that a person favors something, or gets paid for it, does not mean that the person is necessarily unreliable. I'm not sure whether we can (or

12459:

I see your point, Eubulides. In the cases you and I are citing there seems to be two common denominators: 1) a lack of reliable sourcing and 2) an agenda of declaring medical "facts" that are not supported by reliable sourcing. The issue is that occasionally such advocacy is notable enough to be

11576:

Additionally, the letters most interesting to POV-pushers on Knowledge are frequently written by people that are notorious for their fringe-y views. A well-respected journal will expect its readers to recognize, and discount, the views of the "Rush Limbaughs" in their field -- but they'll still

11100:

A phase II trial is, by its very definition, a small trial in diseased subjects and the first to evaluate for effectiveness. Very large numbers of treatments don't even make it out of the laboratory, and even then a large proportion is not developed further if there are no encouraging results at

10144:

I believe (don't ask for a source) that PubMed classifies "reviews" based on a handful of numerical criteria: reviews have few authors and many citations, and so forth. In other words, PubMed uses a computed algorithm to determine which articles are "reviews". I've written a couple which are not

9211:

WP:MEDRS has been accepted as a guideline, it is not an essay. But note the top description "a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense and the occasional exception" - "generally" does not mean everyone, and I would agree even

6860:

If you are attributing a statement to Dentzer, then it does matter whether your statement "lines up" with the source or not. The question is whether you want to use a misleading summary or not. You are insisting on using a misleading summary in order to advance your personal prejudices about the

6052:

I read that Dentzer article when it came out in the NEJM, and I didn't think it was particularly useful -- just a lot of de gustibus judgments about how she disagreed with the way the press handled particular stories. I didn't think the Jim Lehrer NewsHour coverage of health care policy was that

3908:

Number 5 - There seems to be a disagreement about the meaning of "focus", and your comments seem to stem from a misunderstanding of what a review is. An article that examines 2-3 reports IS NOT A REVIEW. Likewise, an article that answers a very, very specific question is not actually a "review",

3392:

Try to avoid referring to medical literature in the article body. Unless a paper is itself highly notable (e.g., Wakefield's infamous MMR), it should not be mentioned (as a paper). To the reader, a "review" is a guide to what's on telly tonight -- so avoid that jargon. A review is just a form of

1516:

Subscription journal articles are invariably available free in major libraries, and can almost always be obtained in interlibrary loan through any public or school library. They have always been accepted as references in Knowledge, just as printed books have. WP is not an encyclopedia limited to

1290:

Sorry, but that last point doesn't sound right to me. Every change I've made to this project page has been motivated by a real problem in a real article, a problem that I could (and often did) point to when explaining why the change was useful. As far as I can tell, no specific changes are being

1275:

While that may be your view, it doesn't specifically address/refute the specific points that have been raised and reasoned and sourced, regarding bias and policy conflicts in the guideline (e.g. the privileging of medical journals/databases over non-medical ones; outlining typical flaws in press

14107:

Not sure that the point is fully covered there, actually. Essentially all journal articles can be considered to be primary sources whether they are meta-analyses, RCTs, case studies, etc. A secondary source would review the state of the topic and report the consensus opinion. Those are the best

14020:

and avoid primary sources completely. The purpose of the encyclopedia is not to stay on the cutting-edge of medical wisdom but to provide a dispassionate and removed summary of the most conventional and staid wisdom about notable subjects. To that end, I'd say what we should retitle the section

13388:

might also be a good object lesson. In general, I think that any time people refer to "balancing" they are usually trying to controvert NPOV. I spent a good number of months trying to excise the word "balance" from NPOV for this very reason and now it doesn't appear. The real key is to remember

12029:

says "Research papers are primary sources; although they normally contain previous-work sections that are secondary sources, these sections are typically less reliable than reviews." It's better to use a real review, as a primary source often has an axe to grind and its previous-work section is

11287:

It's definitely not a black-and-white issue. For a well-researched area like pancreatic cancer, though, it should not be hard to find reliable sources that review experimental and research therapies, and Knowledge articles should rely on these secondary sources instead of citing primary sources

10440:

Publisher is T&F, a good but second level academic publisher. The editor in chief and about half the editors come from a single department, often a danger sign, but it's the Institute of Psychiatry at Kings College London, which is rather well known. . However, it's not in Journal citation

10023:

more reliable than primary sources. The fact that a handful are not just means that you should, in these cases, use several secondary sources to give a broad view of the range of opinions on the matter. What is not appropriate is for us to use primary sources to cast doubt on the conclusions of

9280:

As for the specific topic: actual causation may be hard to prove in humans. You'd have to prove that changes in schizophrenic patients were due to drugs and not to disease processes. (I understand that just the opposite has been proven in bipolar patients: manic episodes kill brain cells.)

7570:

Certainly it's a side issue, as far as Dentzer is concerned. The main "factual distortion of a source" that is going on in this subthread is the overemphasis on Dentzer's pro forma concession that news articles often get it right. But that concession is not Dentzer's main point; it's not even a

6829:

If you ever find a situation where our deprecation of sole reliance on the popular press actually prevents you from writing a good article, please let us know. Until then, even if it hurts your professional pride to have known limitations called out without a placating admission that not every

5429:

to use the analysis of a particular diet type to criticise the particular diet that FFL promote. If the Gale Encyclopedia does that then fine. In addition, the study is open to criticism (small number of participants, in-hospital setting, possibility that the form of dissociated diet studied is

5353:

reviews because they indicate that the primary study is still relevant, hasn't been superseded or discredited. You rightly say you wouldn't do this in an academic paper, but academic papers are written by (known) academics, not anonymous wikipedians. We benefit from the extra authority that the

5163:

I support adding to the guideline the 1st & 3rd paragraphs you proposed above. For the 2nd paragraph you propose I'd prefer that the 2nd sentence read: "If you have access to both the original source and the summary, and you find the summary helpful, it is good practice to cite both sources

4268:

I'm aware what "hearsay" means in both the general "gossip" definition and the legal one. The contents of hearsay evidence are generally inadmissible and not regarded as truth. It is a loaded term, where "secondary source" would have been plain. If you don't want to listen to advice, ignore it.

3739:

1. Peer review is an issue of quality, however, many documents, such as consensus statements by major organizations or government guidelines, are not generally considered peer reviewed and are still great sources. Thus this proposed bit of advice would mislead editors into incorrectly rejecting

3312:

If a review makes a bold claim, and the evidence doesn't stack up, then this should be addressed through the usual channels. You are correct that reviews sometimes make bold claims based purely on clinical experience and "gut feeling" of clinicians who have studied a condition for most of their

2893:

I understand why wikipedia wants reviews in the last 5 years. I understand that some reviews a few years older might still have value. I understand that in inactive fields, reviews have longer shelf life. I understand that seminal reviews also have value. But generally speaking, at some point a

2246:

I have seen many examples of the misuse or primary sources. There are also problems with reviews. The issue can be quality but it can be pov pushing too. I have never seen an example in wikipedia of a bogus research paper. I have seen very questionable reviews. As ICB states, anyone can write a

2209:

Sure: I want the primary sources. No -- strike that, I want the original dataset, on my own computer, and I'm going to have a long, personal chat with the people that generated it. I'm also going to drop a note to a couple of people that have worked with these individuals, and to a couple of

1240:

Generally, I favor writing guidelines so that they can be correctly interpreted by an idiot, because if you're writing, for example, a school weapons policy, it's pretty safe to assume that at some point there will be a pointy-haired idiot interpreting the policy. (True example: most American

1072:

there are 3 types of sources not indexed on Medline: one is journals not regarded as relevant to scientific medicine, a second is local journals outside the US, and a third is journals that have material relevant to medical topics, though in other sciences. None of them can be assumed to be not

15021:

Abstracts are subjected to much more minimal peer review than publications. Generally, the authors are given a great deal of benefit-of-the-doubt that wouldn't be the case if they were submitting a manuscript for publication. This is true at the major meetings where I've submitted and reviewed

14417:

When we tell an editor to "consider reviews", we mean "consider relying on them -- they're usually pretty good sources for all sorts of purposes". When we tell an editor to "consider study design", we mean "This paper is just a short case series, and that's pretty weak evidence" (or "That's a

14148:

Again, encouraging the use of secondary sources is not the point of this subsection. No matter how fervently we all agree that secondary sources are wonderful -- and I believe that we do agree on that point -- our agreement does not change the content of this particular subsection to be about

13564:

But many articles that are "medically-related" concern physiological processes and lack implications for any treatment or health related decisions. These need to be reliable but the issue of consensus is not relevant and reflecting this journals publish many fewer secondary reviews upon them.

12360:

I am deeply concerned that there is a tendency among some to disparage secondary references which cover mainstream thought while cherry-picking positive references and using them as sources for either outright assertions of fact which are disputed or as a means to inappropriately "balance" the

12265:

Generally, much less reliable research has been conducted about the efficacy, safety, and legitimacy of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) than has been done for mainstream medicine. For this reason, reliable sources may be much more difficult to find and unreliable sources are often

11698:

The problem here may be simply that Dr Greene's page was written in 1998 and last updated in 2000, and is simply obsolete. However, I found similar obsolete-or-sensationalistic material on mercury and autism. I'd be leery of citing that website for any but the most routine medical information.

11135:

Generally speaking, I think that such a rule could be created and would be widely supported, although I think it would require more than a single sentence to properly explain the limits. For example, are we talking about this standard as applied to a disease article, or in an article about an

9180:

To backtrack on the article history a little, I was for including this interview until I, with the help of others, discovered that four other studies in this area have already been published (two in humans, two in primates), and I've added them to the article, initially directly, later through

8379:

I don't know if you're an MD, but I interview a lot of academic MDs who publish in the NEJM, Lancet, JAMA, and similar journals -- and they themselves often get their information about clinical studies first from the New York Times. I was at a meeting recently trying to find a doctor who could

8351:

Because this is Knowledge, anybody who has the knowledge and access to the journals can check the news story against the journals. If the original news story checks out against the original source, you leave it in. If you think the news story misrepresents the original research, you can change

5416:

This is such a key point and why so many POV pushers want to cite primary studies: because it helps them prove a point when they can't find a reliable secondary source to back them up. This is the mistake made in the Fit for Life example. It is as though "The Gale Encyclopedia of Diets" is not

3642:

Several of these items are wrong, or at least misleading. For example, a narrow focus is great if you want to get an in-depth look at a narrow question, but absolutely lousy for getting a broad perspective of the general situation -- and vice versa. Neither of these styles is better than the

2105:

I do not think that it is possible to put together a policy that can address the quality of sources published in peer-reviewed academic journals, but I do think it is entirely possible to limit citations to sources that are peer-reviewed to reduce the amount of propaganda that could occur in a

1271:

I agree guidelines should be as simple as possible. I note it has previously been alleged that this entire guideline represents instruction creep by trying to detail how to implement policies. I understand from what you are saying that you don't think it does so in a biased way, but is at most

14015:

Knowledge should be a tertiary resource and so if it comes down to determining whether a single paper is reasonable or not or which of a pair of contradictory papers Knowledge should be citing, it is always best to go with secondary sources. In general, we should be encouraging editors to use

11616:

The sources you list are, on their faces, good sources. The list includes books, reviews, a meta-analysis, and other high-quality publications. Of course, it's possible to misuse a good source, so you'll want to be careful about whether or not the source, taken altogether, really supports a

10323:

Too far. We should certainly be very wary, especially with controversial subjects, non-mainstream findings, product promotion, etc, but not all medical information is achieved via the scientific method and not all is published in journals. As this is a guideline, we should give advice but not

9402:

I'm concerned we are placing too much emphasis on trying to work out and reproduce the opinions and words of one author in one paper, which is an opinion piece, not a product of research. The article is not just concerned with accurate reporting (though she does give examples of misleading or

8393:

You seem to believe in a romantic world where scholars get their information directly from the peer-reviewed journals, and eschew the lowly New York Times. But that's not the real world of medicine. Even leading doctors get a lot of their information about new studies from the New York Times.

8310:

So what's the problem, again? Do you want the editor to first figure out the reporter's reputation before double-checking the facts in the literature? What exactly is wrong with our existing recommendation that the editor skip that potentially time-consuming and error-prone step and just go

6381:

The important point that you're missing is that there is a great variation in journalism, some of it reliable, some of it not reliable, and there are ways of distinguishing between them. That's what Schwitzer studies. This guideline completely brushes that research aside, and doesn't give any

5341:

The issues above ignore the benefits of a fact merely being stated in a peer-reviewed review paper provides over the "same" fact in the original research paper. It also assumes there is a 1:1 mapping from statement in a review to the citations in the review and therefore the cited sources are

4731:

As your introduction indicates, these papers are based on presentations given at a conference. The content of such talks is usually not submitted for peer review. Therefore, derivative publications are likely to receive less peer review than papers submitted directly as reviews. Still, I'd be

4691:

Generally speaking, I don't invariably trust PubMed's opinion as to whether something is a review. Sometimes PubMed labels an article a review when it is not a review, and vice versa. (Usually PubMed is right, but not always.) When in doubt, I get a copy of the journal containing the article,

4518:

There is nothing wrong with identifying "reliable". So, identify all the key characteristics of a reliable source. Perhaps that is already accomplished, perhaps it needs to be touched up. Next, indicate that reviews can be less reliable the more these key characteristics stray from the ideal.

3909:

either, although it may be called a "meta-analysis". Reviews are articles that discuss the state of a field (which may be broad or somewhat narrow) by reviewing ALL of the relevant, recent literature. The terms "relevant", "recent", etc. are subjective; I doubt you can set guidelines for them.

3611:

What may be obvious to you or me, many not be obvious to the majority of contributors. Probably a majority of contributors have no real idea what a review is. This is why the MEDRS article is most likely largely an educational article. Such a guideline would educate but it would also help any

3009:

Not sure what you mean about crediting "scientifically uniformed contributors". A current FAC uses a year 2000 source for data on medication types, strategies and doses. The source may be originally a good one, but many current medications in use today were not being used in the year 2000 and

734:

articles and will become more and more useful, but they are not a complete record of anything. PubMed provides abstracts only for all published articles in biomedicine. The place to search for material is unquestionably PubMed, using PMC as a convenient source of full articles for the ones it

506:

with expert oversight and the ability to criticize conclusions, and to enter into this territory sets a shaky precedent in which we'll have another layer of unofficial expertise or authority - regular users, admins, and "those who can discard studies on the basis of methodology". TimVickers,

12544:

I'm not sure that "poorly sourced claims" is the right title here. A widely accepted fact could be poorly sourced (e.g, to someone's blog, because it was handier than a medical textbook that says the same thing), and this paragraph doesn't seem to address that. This seems to deal more with

12132:

In fairness to Jagra, his contribution history shows that he is not an SPA. His history over the last year has been almost exclusively CFS-related, but then again, there's been a lot of controversy on that page over the last year, resulting in one banned user and several formal and informal

9735:. The most striking difference is that while earlier trials were focused on selenium-deficient people, the SELECT men were high in selenium. Selenium is toxic at higher doses. Big surprise. Similarly, NYTimes recently highlighted the "increased mortality" from vitamin E in an article titled " 7721:

Dentzer goes on to give multiple examples of news articles getting it wrong and explaining why this occurs. Overall, it would be misleading to summarize her comments with "Some articles in the popular press, particularly those by experienced reporters, are accurate, while others are wrong or

478:

Wikischolar citation template generator is now broken, has been for a while. Would be great if someone could re-create it. The text also gives the impression that google books is only good for finding other references, and I have reworded to avoid discouraging the use of books themselves as

8654:

You seem to think doctors read the major journals every week and that's where they get their information from. If you knew more about the real world, you'd know that those doctors are few and far between. There are studies of where doctors get their information, and the journals aren't that

8263:

I was making a parenthetical comment that it's not necessary to divine the reporter's level of experience. If he's accurate, it doesn't matter how much experience he has. Some young journalists without much experience in journalism do very good work. (I disagree with Dentzer on that point.)

8012:

Two of those seem useful links, particularly in light of the fact that we already advise people to use the "laysummary" parameter in cite journal. They could help with selecting articles for those so I've made an addition to the guideline. Do you have any other specific suggestions Nbauman?

6020:

the contributors to this page, journalists say "wrong or misleading" things about health too often for us to consider them generally reliable. Sorry if that offends you but that's our opinion. Wrt WEASEL/PEACOCK, WP guidelines do not have to follow WP guidelines or policy (none of them do).

4982:) that publish expert third-party summaries of reviews published elsewhere. In general, tertiary sources can be useful guides about the relevant medical literature and how much weight to give different sources; however, as much as possible Knowledge articles should prefer secondary sources." 4488:

Scuro, do you know the saying about complex problems having simple solutions? A common mistake here is to think these are guidelines on identifying accurate/truthful/correct sources rather than on reliable sources. We can't offer a guide to help pinpoint all the mistakes or shortcomings an

2981:

Yes, a review, is a review, but over time, excellent often does morph into questionable or even useless. Take the 1970's ECT review, where they no longer use that machinery currently. That review is now virtually useless. For us it makes sense not to use it. But what of vast majority of the

1704:

is an editorial decision. That's because some reviews are pieces of stunning brilliance (usually those in the core journals, by avowed experts with wide clinical experience in the subject), and some reviews are pieces of stunning lunacy (usually in smaller journals and by semi-controversial

13361:

about whether, e.g., having your children's names and school photos published with captions like "Kate: a cock-starved exhibitionist, or a paraphiliac who just gets off on the idea of it?" as retaliation for "insulting" the trans community (by publishing your current scientific views about

10866:

I really dislike the idea of endorsing the Merck Manual ... does anyone have the most recent version to see if it's still inaccurate on TS? And we shouldn't be encouraging adding anything to external links; ideally the sources are cited (can Eubulides' wording go further to state that?).

3267:

I'm not sure I agree. Citing a bunch of research articles individually to synthesize a point involves much more work than to than citing one research article which makes a fairly bold claim, sometimes even secondarily through its own synthesis. I feel like the bigger concern has to do with

8306:

I also note that you acknowledge above that the facts should be checked against the proper scientific literature -- "Knowledge articles should be checked against the original published research or peer-reviewed review articles for accuracy" -- which is exactly what we have recommended all

507:

Eubulides and many of the heady powereditors who are regulars on MEDRS I would trust with this judgement, but it is begging, just begging for trouble as soon as a content dispute arises where one side has a very strong POV. These are comments about articles that I think should be made by

6638:

So here on WP we have critics of the popular press selectively quoting and distorting a source, to make the point that they're trying to push -- that the popular press is unreliable -- rather than accurately reporting what the source herself actually believes -- that the popular press is

4679:

on "Ketogenic diet and treatments". How are we to tell, especially if the review is found via a PubMed search, whether a review is peer-reviewed or not? BTW: by "mini-review", they don't mean 1/2 page. They range in size from 2–10 pages. I've added a link, above, to the publisher's page.

3219:

we've focused on review articles. The bottom line is that we don't want editors to use their own prioritization and synthesis of the primary literature - it's too easy for an even moderately sophisticated editor to mine the literature and create a "reliably sourced" article that violates

12869:

and an Volunteer Clinical Professor of Medicine at UCLA Medical Center (one of 3300 medical doctors who volunteer a certain number of hours a month to be associated with the university), Robert Heller, MD. The company selling the product has been able to gain endorsements by a number of

9963:

strongly opposed the emphasis on reviews was that, in his words (if I recall correctly), they are often "written by pharmaceutical hacks". These days the tide has begun to turn and, if you look hard enough, you can find unbiased information, as evidenced by the recent Cochrane review on

11569:

pages at a regular newspaper: even if the editors think the writer is a complete idiot, they don't want to be accused of "silencing dissent" or "ignoring evidence" (etc.). So they publish letters that they disagree with, on grounds of keeping the dialogue open or keeping the readers

14259:

The "Consider" is fine, but as mentioned above the section is about more than just study design. How about "Consider the type of source"? Also, in the 1st sentence the phrase "assessing whether a particular viewpoint" should be changed to "considering whether a particular viewpoint".

12895:

as if this company had anticipated Knowledge's sourcing policy and has done their best to essentially prevent us from being able to write a truly neutral article on the subject. I must admit to being at an almost complete loss for even knowing where to begin. One possibility is that

4426:

while I may think the review is crap, most likely the person who cites the review will have a different subjective understanding about why the review is good. Where do we compare notes? We can go to MEDRS and find characteristics of the review that are good and that's all we can do

13275:

I'm willing to remove proper editorials from this paragraph: anything actually written by the editor meets every possible definition of editorial control (although they're still not peer-reviewed). I think what I've written is still true about op-eds, commentaries, and letters.

11142:

As for the timing: I think that the vast majority of improvements to Knowledge's guidelines stem from someone seeing an actual problem. I'd be unhappy to discover that someone sat around thinking up hypothetical problems to "solve" in the guidelines. That path leads to needless

3393:

literature. Would you say "a paperback from 1975..."? I'm unable to read the full text of the review on ECT, and know little about the subject, but it looks very much like that review is of case studies and is very explicitly one author's opinion. Why should it be mentioned at all?

6632:

In other words, Dentzer said what I've repeatedly said, that (1) some popular news sources are accurate, while (2) others are not. MEDMOS selectively paraphrases Dentzer to make it sound as if she made a one-sided statement supporting (2), even though she actually made a balanced

8988:

Eubulides, Dentzer said in her introduction, "Often these messages are delivered effectively by reporters who perform thoughtfully even in the face of breaking news and tight deadlines. But all too frequently, what is conveyed about health by many other journalists is wrong or

621:

I'm old fashioned, I like to use history and diffs and other such wiki tools. None of this new fangled "ink", "draft" and "dead tree" stuff for me ;-). Could you do l'il old me a favor and add the changes to the page itself, so I can check them in my own old fashioned way? O:-)

15144:

I would agree that they're primary sources, and (relative to the standards we normally expect of medical pages) fairly poor ones at that. Not that they don't have a limited place... Changes look good, even a mention to illustrate they aren't a "first choice" source is good.

15081:

So there's no guidance on the subject that can help me with a current question, but is it worth drafting some? Though I'm sure we can discuss on talk pages that "X source is a conference abstract and therefore preliminary", it's always better/easier to point to something like

10145:

characterized as such by PubMed - probably I didn't use enough references :) Anyhow, I could be wrong since I can't find a source to support my statements, but I would suggest that editors may be as good or better position to determine which articles are "reviews" than PubMed.

5320:(and read in full, not just an abstract). There is no requirement on WP to double-up a citation because it might be inadequate. If you believe the review is "crappy" either because you think it is full of mistakes or was published in a seriously weak journal, then don't use it. 1386:

A quick reaction: that source looks reliable. It's peer-reviewed and it is a secondary source. However, it's not a medical journal in the usual sense (it's not PubMed-indexed, for example), and it would be better to cite its sources directly. Its References section looks good.

10553:, and an obscure, low-profile one at that. Hopefully our existing guidelines would have led editors to properly weight material from that journal. On the other hand, sometimes shit happens. Knowledge policies can't prevent real-world misdeeds. If someone had cited articles by 3224:. One workaround to prevent this sort of abuse (which I've found to be relatively common) is to insist that our use of the primary literature mirrors the synthesis and weighting applied by experts in the field. Review articles give us a window to see what experts in the field 14905:???: Frankly I do not see relationship with present discussion... Since most people involved in that discussion are heavily involved in the medicine project, and more opinions were asked in the med project I am quite sure that the discussion result would have been the same.-- 13679:

There's obviously a borderline between healthy skepticism and abusive paranoia. Unfortunately, that dividing line is grounded in commonsense, which seems largely absent from many quarters of Knowledge. Leaving aside the more loony and self-serving invocations of pharmanoia,

13218:

That definition of 'informal peer-review' only works if you assume that the editor of your local newspaper does 'informal peer-review' when selecting letters from readers to publish on the letters-to-the-editor page. Editorial selection is not the same as either editorial

10244:"Newspapers and magazines may also publish articles about scientific results before those results have been published in a peer-reviewed journal, or reproduced by other experimenters. Such articles may be based uncritically on a press release, which can be a biased source." 3693:

moot. But that doesn't seem to be the thrust of your disagreement. You seem to think that parameters that help identify poor reviews are not a good idea because some of those parameters are the same parameters that one would use for ordinary sources? Did I get that right?--

14188:

But the section is about more than study design. It also emphasizes reviews and other secondary sources that are not research studies in the usual sense. I'd rather not have the section header limit itself to "studies", which sounds too much like primary research studies.

7350:) But not only should our profession demand better training of health journalists, it should also require that health stories, rather than being rendered in black and white, use all the grays on the palette to paint a comprehensive picture of inevitably complex realties." 5900:, all published February 16 or later, and all terribly misleading or wrong. It's quite bad in today's journalism, at least in the English-language press. Anyway, the cited source says "all too frequently" and it's straying to far from that to change it to "sometimes"; I 5242:, failure to document actual practice (a requirement for guidelines), and a sense of it very commonly being an unnecessary, make-work standard. When it's necessary or appropriate, editors can do that on their own. This is not a reasonable standard for 99% of sources. 7712:

I don't agree that that is Dentzer's main or even secondary point, no. It is true that Dentzer briefly concedes that point before making her main arguments about the relatively low quality of news articles as sources for medical information. Here's what Dentzer writes:

7888:

I wanted to do that, but I was outvoted by editors who insisted that the entire popular press was unreliable. If you start by saying that the entire popular press is unreliable, then you can't go on to explain how some popular press sources are reliable and others are

3396:

Prefer to state the facts with an appropriate level of confidence as supported by your sources. The reader wants to know if ECT causes brain damage. Not whether one author said this and another author said that. Or if one small study found this or a larger study found

10780:

I'm not sure we need to add this: ideally, if those sources have useful info, they are already included as sources for the article (which I see has been suggested in Eubulides' wording). (And the Merck Manual has long been woefully inaccurate on Tourette syndrome).

7842:

Tim, in practice, the way to help WP editors figure out which popular press articles are accurate or wrong is to link to the many free web sites that have been set up by collaborations of journalists, social scientists, doctors and academics for that purpose, such as

13618:

links to. I sense that the previous comment, though written in general terms, is motivated by one or more specific examples; if so, it would be helpful to know what those examples are. Certainly it is not unique to medicine that secondary sources are preferred; see

3146:

the review. Conversely, if the review was done last year, has a lot of authors at respected institutions, and is published in a leading journal on its subject, whereas the more-recent primary studies were all published by fringe sources, then you go with the review.

11112:, for instance, and create the completely erroneous impression that dementia is a treatable disease. Knowledge should not be in the business of promoting treatments that have no certain future. I cannot understand how you could actually disagree with this premise. 11441:

Sure, there are exceptions, truly notable phase II results that cry out to be mentioned even though no reliable reviews have been published yet; but these should be rare, and they should be removed in short order as reviews of these oh-so-notable results come in.

13685:

findings and one sentence to the study's funding - that does not accurately reflect the weighting in the source, and it gives undue weight to the funding issue. I'm not sure what the right answer is, other than to punt it and handle it "on a case-by-case basis".

9419:

Colin, I agree that we are placing too much emphasis on the Dentzer piece which you correctly point out is an opnion piece, not supported by data or research. If you want peer-reviewed research supported by data, you can follow the links on Schwitzer's web site.

5334:

Point 3. I'm not clear about this one. Reviews rarely have useful abstracts. They usually just say "We review the literature on ...". Again, you talk about "statements that are supported from a single source" which is a simplistic way of judging the quality of a

3904:

Number 4 - The quality of a review is not reason for the guideline on age. The age of a review IS a reason to question the review's RELEVANCE. If significant knowledge has been gained since a review was written, the review can no longer tell you the state of the

3045:

I am referring to the origin of this thread regarding dated reviews. So you are saying that the issue of an 8 year old review for medications that do not include the most recent and frequently used is irrelevant, Colin? Don't understand this argument of yours.

3028:

And therefore, your argument is that the topic being discussed has changed significantly in the last 8 years and so a year-2000 source is unlikely to be very useful. What has this got to do with medicine-related articles or reviews that isn't equally valid for

6467:

widespread reputation for accuracy. Doctors themselves read the New York Times. I've been amazed to find out sometimes that even leading investigators had read the NYT article, but not the original journal article, about something important in their own field.

1874:

Reviews are filtered through the reviewer, so they are ALWAYS hearsay. Research-reports are first-hand, so it is ALWAYS better to cite them. That does not mean that the research is always GOOD; it simply means that the source is less biased than a second-hand

9812:

Dentzer's point is that "when journalists ignore complexities or fail to provide context, the public health messages they convey are inevitably inadequate or distorted". That's exactly what happened there, when the average vitamin E intake is around 7 mg/day

3141:

I don't think the guideline can come up with advice that is definitive for every circumstance; there will always be some gray areas. We can make gray areas smaller, but we have to do so carefully, as the cost of shrinking gray areas is often greater than the

2288:"I have never seen an example in wikipedia of a bogus research paper." This doesn't match my experience; I often run into uses, or attempts to use, research papers that are highly questionable. A few days ago, for example, another editor wanted to cite Geier 14562:

articles). But rather than introduce that disclaimer, I think it'd be better to systematically fix the language in the guideline to make this clearer; that way readers won't have to know about the disclaimer in order to understand the rest of the article. I

13468: 12052:

Might as well also add that review articles can be primary sources. I recall Eubulides telling me that a review I found was a primary source because the author of the review cited two papers, including one which he had coauthored (this was a discussion on

7967:

You can tell the reporter's level of skill by how well he meets these criteria. (Actually, what matters is not his experience, but whether he writes an accurate story.) These criteria also help you figure out whether the article is adequate or misleading.

3802:, it is generally considered a very important literature review -- and it is not generally peer-reviewed (it is instead written by the peers), it is generally self-published, and the people issuing the document may or may not have any academic credentials. 11455:

I could imagine good reasons to mention a Phase II trial in an article about a biopharma company, and occasionally in an article about a drug, but I'm unconvinced that it should be mentioned in an article about a disease -- especially under "Treatment".

6132:

It does offend me that you say that without any supporting evidence, evidence of the quality that you would expect others to use -- evidence in peer-reviewed journals, academic studies, or reviews of those studies. Indeed, you say that despite contrary

5211:

WhatamIdoing removed it for a minor reason, which I had already addressed when you removed it. You however have contested the essence of the changes. There are two issues here, and I would like them to be discussed separately, so I'm making subsections:

138:

can also be quite useful for medical searches: it can let readers peek at a few sentences in books even when full access is not granted, and can help editors find reliable sources quickly, either by looking at the book's references or by citing the book

8366:

to misunderstand a journal article than a news story by, say, Lawrence Altman in the New York Times. Third, news stories that meet Schwitzer's checklist will get comments by other experts in the field who may point out weaknesses in the journal article.

2311:). I'm afraid this sort of thing happens all too often: editors get excited or interested in a recent primary study of a medical topic and want to throw it into an article, without having the context and quality control that a good review would provide. 5188:

the original article(s) is a convenience for the reader, and avoids diminishing the importance of the results; citing the review gives the result some additional credibility beyond that conferred by the (often anonymous) reviewers of the original work.

14173:

Because an elderly self-published source is not a high-quality source even if it is a meta-analysis. Study design is not the only factor that determines high-quality sources. It is, however, the only factor addressed in this particular subsection.

6706:

I "selectively quoted" from the introductory paragraph of the article. The introductory paragraph is where writers state the main thrust of their argument clearly to frame and qualify what follows. Dentzer states at the beginning that often messages

14616:

sooner or later. I feel rather strongly about us not distributing medical misinformation based on random newspaper reports. And as you know people tried to argue that MEDRS must be applied to our reporting of a political controversy in the past, at

8795:

As for corrections, yes, every reliable newspaper and TV show does publish corrections. (I've always made a distinction between reliable and unreliable news media.) I see them every day. The New York Times has a corrections page that runs every day

5757:

summaries, one by the authors of the review and one by a 3rd party (Yeung). This is a fairly extreme case, but it's not inappropriate, as fluoridation is a contentious topic and the cited source is the most recent systematic review published on the

3149:

To move this discussion forward, it would help if specific wording-changes could be proposed to address the concerns. I tried to do that with a simple "Avoid older reviews." and got shot down for the good reasons cited above. Can you propose better

9238:

It's like a controversy during the Olympics. For example, were the fireworks real or computer generated? The Chinese organisers have their view, the media have their view and bloggers have their view. A neutral article would cover all these views.

5495:

I fully agree that this guideline should not be imposing this standard on all editors. Xasodifuih should feel free to do that (so long as s/he reads every single paper) whenever it is wanted, but we simply should not impose this on every editor.

5306:

articles. We already have a statement that encourages open access journals if quality is not compromised. Well, practically all abstract are open access, even if the full text is not. Giving an extra footnote that eases verification can't be a bad

1347:

This "one woman" claim is blatantly not true, the controversy has been going on since the early 1980s. By the way, the article is about a regulatory and political conflict. This article is only partially about medicine/science: NPOV trumps SPOV.

14642:

In any given medical article or article that contains biomedical information, MEDRS applies to the scientific nitty gritty details, not to the political, controversial, historical and cultural details. That is still covered by RS. That which is

11529:, I think very good secondary sources are needed to give any weight whatsoever to letters to the editor. If a journal like The Lancet carries a review, they will have done their homework in deciding whether the article is worthy of that status. 3971:

Agree. We don't need to cite the "evidence". We aren't academic researchers. In fact, we are discouraged from weighing the evidence and encouraged to cite secondary sources from experts who have weighed the evidence. A consensus statement (like

5607: 729:

Yes, PubMedCentral is not an alternative to PubMed in any sense at all; PMC is an archive of articles posted as being the result of mostly NIH sponsored investigations from about 2007/8+, with some earlier--its a wonderful thing to have these

6753:

Often these messages are delivered effectively by seasoned reporters who perform thoughtfully even in the face of breaking news and tight deadlines. But all too frequently, what is conveyed about health by many other journalists is wrong or

6624:

5205:

strongly recommends that in situations like those outlined in the above two paragraphs, the editor citing the original source must not simply copy the reference from the review or summary, but must also check what the original source/review

4662:

Journal supplements are usually treated with peer review, but conference presentations themselves are usually not peer reviewed. I suspect the sources are reliable, but would be superseded by actual secondary sources if these are available.

8735:

Colin, the major medical journals, such as NEJM, JAMA, BMJ and Lancet, have been wrong or misleading in the past. For example, NEJM published articles promoting Vioxx, Lancet published an article claiming that autism is caused by vaccines,

3853:

system provides a substantial pay raise to "world famous" professors, and consequently (according to a friend that is a professor of chemistry), many senior professors in the UC system deliberately court fame as part of their career plan.

9031:

You think it's more accurate to delete the first part about reporters performing effectively, which goes against your personal opinion, and leave in the second part about journalists being wrong or misleading, which supports your personal

3946:

that is rather broader than your personal definition: "The word "source", as used in Knowledge, has three related meanings: the piece of work itself, the creator of the work, and the publisher of the work. All three affect reliability."

6183:

This entry makes broad, sweeping generalizations attacking newspapers, contrary to the evidence in the peer-reviewed literature. And you say that you can do that because WP guidelines are merely opinion, and don't have to be supported by

4208:, assembled by Andrew Booth from Sheffield's School of Health and Related Research. It contains both those series and a collection of other related papers, most of which are freely accessible. Would links to the first two be appropriate? 1749:

The advice from the researcher who criticized reviews and preferred primary sources is good advice, if you are a researcher. But it is not good advice if you are a novice in the subject, that is, if you are a member of Knowledge's target

1492: 13983:) I expect alt med topics to contain non-mainstream sources, but they shouldn't have undue weight and shouldn't be misleading. If they stand alone, then they mislead readers. MEDRS guidelines are supposed to correct such imbalances. -- 472: 14108:

sources to use. The issue I have with this section is that it does not go far enough in making sure that primary sources are avoided whenever possible. I guess you can say that I'm a fan of, "When in doubt, ask for an expert summary."

3774:

4. Age is not a matter of quality. (Age dramatically limits how you can appropriately use a source of scientific information, but an amazingly well-conducted review doesn't become a bad one in fifty years; it just becomes an outdated

15649:

is particularly good advice to use in such areas. For the history of AIDS, for example, the question of where AIDS started and how it spread is clearly biomedical, as are many social aspects of AIDS involving transmission of disease.

15066: 13571:

The medicine-related guidelines should reflect this and limit the need for secondary sources only for treatment or health related articles with physiological ones having the same reliability requirements as other scientific Knowledge

6301:

I would favor changing "all too often" back to "too often"; the "all" isn't really needed here and is I think part of the problem. However, changing "too often" to "sometimes" would go too far from what is in the source, Dentzer 2009

4545:. While you claim that you only care about evaluating reviews, every single complaint you've made about being unable to prove that your personal estimation of a review's value applies at least as much to the difficulty of evaluating 1992:

I maintain that ALL sources are open to scrutiny and a "first pass" is the legitimacy of the publication in its field. In science, "peer-reviewed academic journal" is the standard for that first pass. Beyond that, methodology must be

12903:

policy to address these issues directly. My feeling is that if the independent sources are of low quality, then it is likely that the subject itself is not notable enough for inclusion. I suspect the same thing applies to protandim.

4578:

I agree that BestBETS often addresses problems that are otherwise very hard to find in the medical literature. At the same time, it is a website without a formal peer review process. I'm unsure if it is the right kind of source...

1961:

to contradict one another, saving a reader some work. Meta-analysis is a better way to do this, however. My point here is that review articles are summaries and everything in them is filtered through the author. They are SECONDARY

1210:

So you haven't actually encountered a situation in a live article in which this guideline, as written and reasonably interpreted, is actually causing any problems? This is just a hypothetical, somebody-might-misunderstand issue?

15525:) is a serious contender to explain bipedalism. Single sources were cited to support this across multiple years, but realistically the theory was not considered serious or useful by paleoanthropologists (though possibly changing 10460: 2002:

I also think that many contributors to this discussion have misunderstood the purpose of citations. The purpose of citing sources is to provide evidence that what one says/writes is accurate, not to give people something else to

479:

references; though books should in many disciplines be used slightly more carefully, their use in general shouldn't be restricted (natually, depending on publisher and oversight; that may be missing or assumed in my adjustments).

493:

I'm also of the opinion that discarding an article or placing qualifications on the mainspace page regards it's usefulness (i.e. "...but these conclusions should be regarded with caution because of a lack of control group.") is

15616:

Moreover, even if the the article's topic is itself broadly biomedical, it shouldn't be applied to remove information that is not MEDRS but is valid for the article. For example one might argue that a specialist subject such

14380:

I agree that a narrative review isn't technically a 'study'. However, a systematic review generally is taken to be a study (of the previously published literature). (It's not an "experiment," but neither is a case report.)

8311:

straight to the literature, since (1) the editor will have to check the literature anyway and (2) we'll still rely on the literature if there's a conflict between the two sources, no matter what the reporter's reputation is?

8293:

You say (without sources) that you might be safe trusting an accurate medical writer. Apparently you mean something more like "has a reputation for accuracy" instead of "wrote this specific story accurately" (which would be

3830:("However, some scholarly material may be outdated, superseded by more recent research..."); what we do here is provide some specific guidance about how to determine what "outdated" usually means in medicine-related articles. 14557:

You're absolutely right that the guideline is intended to apply to all medical facts and figures, regardless of whether the overall article topic is exclusively medical; this is already indicated by the guideline's title of

13312:. If a letter to the editor is written by an expert and the fact asserted is in concord with standard texts/reviews/etc. on the subject, then attribution of the fact to the letter-writer is, in my estimation, a violation of 4832:

the caveat you inist on. Getting hung up on a single word ("cite") when the point here is choosing the right sources seems small potatoes to me. You could have rephrased it or added the caveat yourself instead of reverting.

2764: 14081:, and is not the point that I'm talking about. My question involves the section that compares meta-analyses to individual trials, and individual trials to case studies, and case studies to pure speculation. The title of 11330:

first read that section, I misunderstood it to mean that Knowledge editors should be using phrases like "Class IIIb evidence" in articles to summarize primary studies that articles cite, which (I hope!) was not the intent.

13415:

Eubulides, his text says "scientific articles", where the current text says "journal articles", you may change it to "scientific studies" if that definition sounds better. The motivation is on the link on the top of this

3791:

6. The effectiveness of an author's publicity and self-promotion efforts is not a matter of quality. They are often used as proxies for quality, but famous researchers make mistakes, and unknown people publish brilliant

2421:

no less. This meta-analysis has been heavily criticized; just look at the PubMed record's "Comment in:" field for starters. I'm not saying that the review shouldn't be cited; only that its results should not be presented

7075:

Dentzer says in the introduction that specialist ("seasoned") journalists can deliver the messages well. She then goes on to give examples of non-specialist or poorly-trained journalists who (she believes) got the story

6711:

delivered effectively, but often they are not. The article deals with examples in which they were not. Nowhere in the article does Dentzer say that her examples characterize all medical stories, or medical journalism in

1049:

which as per talk page of the former were initially one guide but then split for dispatch purposes. I asked at citing sources a few months ago about where an actual guideline along those lines might go, but no response.

15354:. As this is certainly going to be controversial amongst certain crowds, care should be taken to broach the topic in an unimpeachable way in order to avoid being interminably bound up in wikilawyering. I'd suggest that 7412:. Experience and training are different. Dentzer believes that a veteran reporter that has spent years reporting all kinds of health stories will do better than a newbie that took one class on the specific subject. 14957:. If you're presenting a poster or abstract on 6 patients, but your ultimate N is 60, it's very easy to get skewed results. I'd basically be inclined to use it somewhere between the preliminary results discussed in 6484:

thought the newspaper coverage of their work was accurate. You would find out that some publications are accurate and some aren't. Instead, you're cherry-picking the newspaper stories and opinion pieces that fit your

554:

oops, my bad. I will read tomorrow if I've the time and until then will refrain from edits and suggestions. Please feel free to revert all changes including my above comments. I had thought this a separate issue.

13592:

here, as I see it, was to focus on medicine and articles closely related to medicine, not on articles that are about biology in general. There are of course gray areas, and physiology is one of them. At one extreme,

4494:

good at identifying the truth (whatever that may be). We can verify that text is sourced reliably. Once we go beyond that, then it involves good-faith editor discussion and consensus forming on a case-by-case basis.

1256:

problems. So I don't see any point in adding a paragraph that explains what everyone already seems to know (e.g., that government policies towards people with mental disorders aren't scientific facts or figures).

6571:

Knowledge should aim higher than just getting most of the facts right most of the time. We should have a high standard of accuracy. There's no harm in our recommendation that people get it right the first time.

3443:

I'm not keen. This page can guide readers to what is best (and therefore what is "better" when comparing sources offered by editors who are in conflict) but we should be careful not to restrict editors beyond what

8282:

Okay, let's take this from the top: The question we are addressing is "Is this popular press source sufficiently accurate that I can just use it as a source for a specific, concrete statement of scientific fact,

10975: 4921:

Perhaps a 1-2 sentences summarizing the conclusion from there (read but don't cite directly because ... ) should be added to the guideline? After all, the guideline bothers to explain how to use google books...

3404:

places where historical, recent and ongoing research should be explicitly discussed in a medical article, but they are fewer and more discrete than is typical on WP (both Wikidocs and POV pushers are guilty here

9878:

I dunno, are any of the other Knowledge guidelines or policies rigorously supported by scientific evidence? Although the scientific method is quite useful for resolving scientific disputes, one can't use it for

7571:

secondary topic in her piece. And it should not be the main point here, where we have many more fish to fry than Dentzer's relatively narrow topic. It's not at all clear that it should be mentioned here at all.

5469:

Also, often an editor has access to the review but not to the source the review cites; if the review is reliable it's not reasonable to insist that the editor go dig up the primary source from a medical library

11717:

which just cites one study about folic acid to conclude "It may well be that this simple measure can also dramatically reduce the risk of Down syndrome"; hardly an authoritative basis for a secondary source...

14637:

Excellent thread Hans, and thanks to Eubulides for the simple fix. (I notice a couple places where more of this type of fix can be done. I'll take a whack at it.) MEDRS doesn't replace RS, but supplements it:

14933: 11548:

Thanks for the clarification, JFW. The issue came up recently in an article I was editing (though I wasn't involved), and I since I wasn't sure, I thought I'd clarify it for future reference. Thanks again!

10994:"A book citation should mention which chapter or entry of the book is being sourced. It is good practice to mention the date, authors, and (if available) DOI for the individual book component, along with the 10938: 3453:

medical articles that are utterly unloved and could benefit from extra material. emphasise the spectrum of quality, and range of article types, rather than just say "use this; avoid that" black & white.

1464:

it's a tertiary source primarily summarizing other reviews. The members of the review panels do not impress me as necessarily being authorities--and they say they use the same panel for all drugs whatsoever.

15498:

Thanks for the many replies and wikilinks - I'll read through them. My apologies for not responding to all the posts on this one, I got caught up on editing a couple articles and this completely slipped my

6649:

However, critics often charge the press with the very errors that they, ironically, are committing themselves. That seems to be the case here -- cherry-picking one sentence in an article, while ignoring the

13974:

They don't seem to appreciate me coming there instead of here. It seems that this is the closest thing to an "WP:RS/N" for MEDRS topics, so that's why I'm starting here. (We really should have a section of

11518:

it is published. Reviewers may advise the editor not to carry an article if it has flaws or doesn't meet the aims of the journal. Often, changes are suggested to make the article better once it is accepted.

6512:

The standard of accuracy that everyone uses on WP is not that high, because other editors will review the changes after they're put on the Internet and correct it if necessary. That's the whole idea behind

1437:

A researcher and university professor (ICBSeverywhere) has taken issue with an article from this source and written at length finding fault with this citation and the called it misleading. She also stated,

697:

But that's for next time. I've unreverted you. Let's see what edits people make. :-) (I found some odd stuff in a hidden text, so I made it slightly friendlier already, I haven't touched visible text yet.)

6498:

Second, the standard of accuracy that I use for my published stories is very high, because the fact-checking is my responsibility alone. (And I get paid for it.) After I publish it, I can't correct it any

5805:

the original paper must be cited as well, even if you didnt actually see it--you just say so. But the ones written by others are their interpretation, and may or may not represent the material accurately.

4054:

The gist of what we are getting at is: can lesser reviews, questionable reviews, and even biased reviews live as citations on wikipedia? Second question, if you perceive this to be a problem, should it be

3813:

or a paper that gets a subtitle of "A review". Any scholarly paper whose major point is, "We looked over what everyone in the field has been writing recently, and here's the current state of things" is a

12406:

I also am concerned with the all-too-common insertion of unreliable material or sources. For example, I just now removed a bunch of unsourced material claiming that water fluoridation is bad for you; see

8096:

quickly on tight deadlines, are less reliable. No source is always reliable, and Knowledge articles should be checked against the original published research or peer-reviewed review articles for accuracy.

8057:

TimVickers, My other suggestion is that we include language in the guideline to explain to people the repeated findings from the peer-reviewed literature about how the reliability of the popular press is

7357:

Again, I'm not saying the current summary of Dentzer can't be improved on, but it summarizes Dentzer far more accurately and fairly than the proposed replacement. Please try to think of a better proposal.

6989:

can't be improved (far from it) but it's not an improvement to replace it with such a misleading summary. Perhaps you could give it another try, which summarizes Dentzer more fairly? 04:58, 25 March 2009

6082:

publication makes mistakes "all too frequently". You could say that doctors make mistakes or commit crimes "all too frequently". Therefore, the phrase is nonsense. If you want to write nonsense, go ahead.

1692:

Knowledge can't engage in these tasks, and reviews tend to be much more useful in writing encyclopedia articles. I'm not sure whether your source is speaking specifically about the suitability of sources

130:

covers all scholarly sources. It is useful not only as a sanity check for Pubmed searches, but also to cover topics outside Pubmed's core purview, such as the sociological or cultural aspects of medicine.

11101:

phase II-III level. It is therefore impossible to say that a treatment is "promising" even if phase II trials are positive, because they may still die before being marketed, let alone implemented widely.

9719:

An interesting example of a recent popular press distortion comes in the form of NYTimes recent coverage of vitamin E. For example, they painted a misleading picture of the aftermath of the SELECT trial

2406:

already says "Look for reviews published in the last five years or so, preferably in the last two or three years." If that's not clear, can someone please suggest a specific wording change that would be

1853:

The only reason to discuss the criteria of a "good source" is to make it easier for people who are EDITING the entries to quickly eliminate some statements made (without reading every source first-hand).

1241:

schools have a weapons policy that technically requires them to report to the local police department that their own police officers carry duty weapons every single time any officer sets foot on campus.)

13581: 12743:. Many, many problems with the proposals made by its advocate, but still a notable opinion if indeed fringe. Below is my addition of the quote. Please tell me what you would like to tweak, change, etc. 12721:

A direct quote would help. But I wonder how many "notable personal opinions" are there, how contradictory they can be (between each other and between itself) and how big is the mess all that can make.--

11136:

investigational new drug? Is this information under ==Treatment== or under ==Research directions==? Are the rules different for rare diseases? For diseases that currently have no adequate treatments?

6553:

This guideline does not say that all newspapers and magazines get everything wrong every time, and where it dings popular press is for widely agreed deficiencies, such as reporting risks out of context.

4906: 7046:

Dentzer makes a standard argument, which I've heard many times among science and medical journalists, which is that specialist medical journalists can cover medicine better than generalist journalists.

5048:), publish third-party summaries of reviews and guidelines published elsewhere. If you have access to both the original source and a helpful summary, it is good practice to cite both sources together." 4785:, your source is really the Web page, which is what you must cite. The credibility of your article rests on the credibility of the Web page, as well as the book, and your article must make that clear. 11573:

Even when I agree with the letter (e.g., it clarifies a point that was lost in a larger article) or it is written by people I respect, I don't think that they're high-quality sources for our purposes.

8716:

reliable, it should not be used. It is as simple as that, and I agree with Colin that after so much time it should be clear that most voices here are in favour of a restrictive policy on lay sources.

1366:

Well, that shouldn't be an issue: news sources discuss the regulatory/political issues, whereas scientific sources are most appropriate to discuss the scientific issues. Seems pretty straightforward.

14339:), and what this section is about has nothing to do with that. The main point of this section is: A meta-analysis trumps a case study. I want a title that specifically deals with the main point. 13070:

or, worse, asserted as fact. Alternatively, if the independent sources discussing a medical subject are of low quality, then it is likely that the subject itself is not notable enough for inclusion.

15181:. Different conferences have different standards -- even multiple standards, depending on whether it's a simple poster or a keynote lecture -- but as a general rule, there's no editorial control. 11598:

Sorry, there is no magic number. One needs to look at all the literature on a topic, assess its reliability, and attempt to reflect it in a balanced way. (I haven't looked at your particular case.)

4814:

And again: this is a guideline. Your changes do not have consensus. Please stop editing the page until you've made a proposal here and determined, at minimum, that there's no active opposition.

14965:

and as soon as secondary sources were produced, replace it. It's somewhat of a moot point, since we're supposed to use mainly review articles, but what do you do when the first publication was in

11288:

directly. There are exceptions for groundbreaking primary sources that have not had time to be reviewed yet, but these exceptions should be quite rare (and shouldn't last longer than a few months).

10112:

labeled as "reviews" and things that I thought were good reviews being unlabeled (well, and basically all older reviews aren't tagged as reviews, but you generally shouldn't be using those anyway).

13355: 15427:

WLU, the sort of review articles that you're talking about are journal articles: they're just not the only possible kind of journal articles. Have you asked the folks at PSTS to address this?

8858:

The argument that because experienced and scrupulous journalists often get their stories right, so all news stories should be acceptable as a sole source in medical articles does not convince me.

5259: 4330:

I don't think that Knowledge's preference for secondary sources obliges editors to use low-quality secondary sources any more than a decision to eat plant-based foods obliges vegetarians to eat

3313:

career. If this ends up in the Knowledge article, and others disagree that this should be included, it can be discussed on the talk page. On the whole, that is only a minor problem with reviews.

15790: 15513:

being cited as a source about AIDS denialism. More explicit guidance on what a secondary source is and why it takes precedence would be quite helpful. This whole thing was brought about by a

12900: 9993: 8499:

I think much of the current dispute comes from the difference between news articles and Knowledge. Knowledge is not a newspaper, and it rightly frowns upon following new stuff too closely (see

2449:

can be perfectly valid reasons for citing a 10-year-old review. For example, it discusses a notable therapy that nobody (apart from a few cranks) uses any more, but which once had a following.

860:

I would not link the "author manuscript" with the PMC tag. There may be significant differences between the submitted manuscript and the final version that has undergone extensive peer review.

533: 12310:

It would be better, I think, to rephrase the advice above so that it does not mention CAM, but does acknowledge and make suggestions for the problem of axe-grinding in poorly-supported areas.

10441:

Reports, although indexed by Web of Science, it is not in JCR, and has published an article trying to explain why its important anyway. This is a serious indication that there are problems.

14731:

The very fact that this MEDRS variation of the RS guideline exists at all reveals the need for a special place for MEDRS issues to be discussed. The closest thing that sometimes works is the

10730:

can be useful guides about the relevant medical literature and how much weight to give different sources; however, as much as possible Knowledge articles should cite the literature directly."

10506:

I was hoping someone else would have a brilliant idea about how to address that issue. I've also been thinking about the advantages of "permitting" these websites (as if this really trumped

9652: 9161:

with increased exposure to "drugs". It only becomes a social issue (why are people being given harmful drugs) if the fundamental assumption (the drugs are harmful) has been adequately proven.

6107:

It doesn't offend me that most of the contributors to this page believe that journalists say "wrong or misleading" things about health too often for you to consider them "generally reliable."

5601: 5510:

Okay, we've agreed to disagree on this one. Thank you all for explaining you reasoning in detail. I won't try to impose my preference on you via the guideline; I consider this matter closed.

5025:

can be useful guides about the relevant medical literature and how much weight to give different sources; however, as much as possible Knowledge articles should cite the literature directly."

12995: 10549:

I don't see the relevance to this discussion (assuming your comment had some intent beyond scoring cheap points). That journal was not a "reputable major scientific organization". It was a

10524:

Statements and information from reputable major medical bodies (CDC, NIH, WHO, Institute of Medicine, etc) should obviously be considered valuable encyclopedic sources. One would hope that

14117: 14034: 13402: 13379: 13285: 13270: 13248: 13213: 13110:

calls, but I don't see how the current wording precludes judgment calls. I did see several opportunities for tightening up the text without (I think) affecting its gist or intent, which I

12913: 12072: 9858: 5571: 3817:

4: Age is not a matter of quality. As I said above, outdated sources are dramatically limited in their utility. They are ideal sources for what was understood fifty years ago; they are

2833: 15416: 11246:

article being less "highly-developed" has to do with it. WEIGHT is more of a content than a sourcing issue. I'm sure there is more we can say about balancing content wrt medical aspects.

11199: 11122: 11088: 9834: 8916:

Oh I see, reading over the meandering "discussions" above it looks like the topic now has little no relation to the text we are editing. It would be much more useful if you were to offer

3370: 3330: 3287: 3246: 2858: 2187: 13561:

sources from recognized publications that filter and discuss them. The medical community recognizes this need and so creates many reviews and textbooks that discuss such primary sources.

12207:

Yeah, that was my understanding as well from the discussion linked to in RetroS1mone's post (and elsewhere as mentioned there). Good to hear confirmation of it, though. Thanks, Tim! --

3956: 3935: 14269: 13882: 13832: 13333: 13123: 12620:. However, I do not think that the wording even came close to implying either of those points. Can you explain how you came to this conclusion and perhaps offer an alternative wording? 12469: 12438: 12319: 7167:

Any paraphrase or citation of Dentzer's article, that supports your believe that the popular press is "generally" not reliable, is a deceptive misquotation or misattribution of Dentzer.

5412:

I'm aware of what you are requesting and repeat that additional citations are not how WP works. The purpose of citations is to say where you got the information that backs up the text.

2339: 1682: 14468: 14250: 14143: 14094: 14064: 13992: 13965: 13921: 13903: 13460: 12947: 12932: 12752: 12730: 12716: 12686: 12665: 12643: 12629: 12611: 12591: 11727: 11708: 11652: 10967: 10306: 10057: 10033: 10010: 9248: 9224: 5299:

of the statement may not be apparent; statements that are supported from a single source may not be incredibly important, so some extra scrutiny is welcome as to what they're based on.

5017:"Internet websites contain a wide range of biomedical information ranging from factual to fraudulent, with high percentage being of low quality. Peer-reviewed medical websites such as 3198: 2634: 15336: 15320: 13554: 13339:

using these kinds of sources for "balancing" statements against a generally accepted claim made in a peer-reviewed article, and the only source you can find is a letter to the editor.

11738: 11586: 9937: 9658:

There is no consensus for change. Nbauman remains offended that we're not showing enough respect to his favorite colleagues, and will probably always remain offended by our supposed

9138: 3500: 3353:"Research articles may provide secondary information on an area of research. Citing these research articles may be preferable if reviews on the topic are dated or too limited in scope 14656: 14628: 14483:

it to "Reliable medical source?". Like SandyGeorgia, I think it could be useful; this is true regardless of whether it was used well or poorly in its first use. Also, I noticed that

13872: 13852: 13507: 13487: 13023: 12973: 12389: 12240: 12148: 10167: 9265: 7930:. There are other ways of rating it. There are many ways of rating news stories, and they've been discussed extensively in the peer-reviewed medical literature, in BMJ and elsewhere. 7805: 3901:

research conducted by those who receive the grants is published in peer-reviewed ACADEMIC journals. Often, the agencies summarize information for patients, physicians, and educators.

2048: 2021: 707: 15468: 15287:. I've refrained from making any comments due to potential COI, but it would be appreciated if someone else might be able to comment on the sources and conclusions in this article. 14826: 14796: 14697: 14603: 14516: 14430: 14409: 14390: 14371: 14348: 14330: 14290: 14198: 14183: 13722: 13711: 13665: 13524: 13441: 12216: 12198: 11836: 11626: 11465: 11408: 11372: 10923: 10879: 10837: 10610: 10519: 10497: 10361:

agree with Colin; we should discourage the citation of such press releases, but not absolutely forbid it since there are always exceptions and instances where it may be reasonable.

10276: 10258: 10124: 9290: 5519: 5505: 5251: 4891: 4842: 4823: 4347: 2652: 2610: 1432: 1418: 1285: 1266: 1235: 1220: 1205: 1170: 89: 15216: 15129: 15046: 14860: 14674:

That discussion seems to have arrived at a consensus not to create a new noticeboard. There is longstanding consensus on this talk page that specific issues should be discussed on

14158: 13449:

When they have an specific article as its topic; although they can not be used to debunk its conclusions they can give some indication on its possible strong points or limitations.

13191: 12856: 12571: 12554: 12176: 12118: 12096: 11607: 11498: 11156: 10950: 10793: 10592: 10367: 9233: 8929: 3801:

On points 1, 2, 3: When a significant organization issues a paper on the current state of medical understanding about <fill in the name of your favorite medical issue here: -->

2530: 1272:

limited, in ways that are appropriate for Knowledge and not significant. I don't understand the last sentence as I do'nt see who has suggested adding a paragraph along those lines.

1025: 692: 666: 631: 15168: 15037:

I'll raise your OR with some anecdotal evidence. I misspelled the organism I was working on in my first conference abstract. It was published with that glaring error uncorrected.

14578: 13100: 11979:

Requires evidence from expert committee reports or opinions and/or clinical experience of respected authorities. Indicates absence of directly applicable studies of good quality.

11558: 11539: 10072: 9952: 9175: 8403: 8320: 8273: 8022: 7977: 7788: 7750: 7435: 7421: 6941: 6839: 6581: 6536: 6410: 6391: 3759:- again the focus is on reviews and not government sources, is it not? If we are talking spectrum, I have seen self published reviews. This would be at the bottom of the spectrum. 3586:

How do you propose to establish whether an author is known in his field? Could this not simply be something we can resolve by consensus, rather than trying to cast this in stone?

2128: 1927: 999: 612: 81: 76: 64: 59: 15747: 15032: 13632: 12899:

is not notable enough for an article, but I have a sneaking suspicion that if someone started an article on the subject it would not be deleted. Perhaps it is time to consider a

11842: 11781: 11097:

Could you please take my post at face value rather than trawling my edit history? Also, please let other editors speak for themselves rather than putting words in anyone's mouth.

10859: 10775: 10178: 10139: 9705: 8773: 7138:

not reliable. That is not what Dentzer said. Dentzer said what I said, and what Schwitzer said, which is that some journalists in the popular press are reliable and some are not.

5913: 5877: 5855: 5791: 5771: 5372:

I find your theoretical presentation somewhat tendentious given that the study Y is peer-reviewed as well, and if it's published in a better venue, it's usually peer-reviewed by

5173: 5158: 5060:"If you are citing a source along with an expert summary, it is helpful to list them together, with the main source first to indicate that it is more authoritative. For example: 4995: 4869: 4416: 2972: 2773:

As it happens this particular example is not a good one, as the first source is actually freely available on the net via an authorized copy, so that a simpler citation would be:

1300: 1059: 847:

therefore links the title to the url parameter if given, rather than the pmc value if it is given too (i.e. the pmc link will do, but url to "original" journal takes preference)

597: 15296: 15271: 14900: 14882: 14744: 14216: 13544: 13425: 13164: 12039: 11350: 10396: 10355: 10339: 9675: 8952: 8818: 8179: 7768: 5841: 4558: 4443: 4384: 4124: 3883: 3702: 3667: 2991: 2872: 2545: 2435: 2370: 2256: 2237: 2073: 1666: 1628: 1319: 870: 14914: 14848: 13351: 13349: 13150: 12015: 11753: 10630: 10045: 9915: 9644: 9102: 9062: 8967: 8664: 8621:

I think you ought to talk to your doctor about where he gets his or her information from, and how much he or she uses the peer-reviewed medical journals to get his information.

8588: 8550: 8516: 8235: 7731: 7679: 7580: 7545: 7449: 7399: 7305: 7285: 6808: 6693: 5998: 4874:

This issue is similar to that of using other primary sources (RCTs etc). The problem is not with using them when other sources don't exist, but with overusing them to write an

3768:

Does a review not examine recent findings? Again, we are talking specifically about reviews, no? To make things clear, reviews examine literature and not people or insitutions.

1582: 926: 15690: 15659: 15639: 15611: 15436: 15344: 15190: 15076: 12347: 11693:"While much research remains to be done, secretin may be a promising treatment and major step through a new doorway into the treatment of chemical problems underlying autism." 10452: 10435: 10096: 8873:

That doesn't convince me either. I never said it. I said that because experienced and scrupulous journalists usually get their stories right, we can use their news stories as

8754: 6298:

Like Colin, I don't know of any "contrary evidence" on this issue; that is, I don't know of any reliable source that contradicts our reliable sources on this particular point.

4325: 2206:

Scuro, I think the person you're talking to doesn't quite grasp the goal here. She writes, for example: "Research findings are primary sources, so they are always superior."

1396: 1372: 851: 15493: 15397: 14717: 12289:

Many areas of medical controversy in medicine are not commonly characterized as CAM, and yet they still would benefit from advice along the lines of the above. These include

11208:

clinical trial. I think that our goal should be to enlighten readers. There are no space limitations, and it would be a mistake to write an article with a 'message' in mind.

10215: 10192: 10151: 9464: 9410: 9297:

It's almost becoming a bit hard to take Mihai seriously - but then I am a "POV-pusher with an admitted conflict of interest", just like everyone else who disagrees with him.

9190: 8903: 8458: 7239: 6339: 5643: 5621: 5490: 5437: 5399: 5365: 5221: 4931: 4916: 4714: 4701: 4611: 4589: 4473: 4237: 4215: 4191: 3492: 3468: 3438: 3163: 2903: 2595: 2577: 2563: 2456: 2327: 2092: 1810: 1782: 1507: 1459: 886: 828: 102: 15232: 15117: 15011: 11363:

Have we just confused early clinical trials with whether the reports about them are primary or secondary sources? Many Phase II trials are described in secondary sources.

11217: 10567: 10544: 9309: 8726: 8700: 4746: 4686: 4673: 3621: 3072: 3059: 3040: 3023: 2508: 2392: 1734: 1715: 1542:

know what the solution is but I think it is major problem. I do not have access to off-line library sources, not being a student and working hundreds of miles from land. —

1357: 11450: 11337:" in articles on diseases or therapies. Medical articles should avoid jargon like that. The main text of articles should concentrate on what's known, not on how we know it. 10757: 9607: 9579: 9553: 9538: 9489: 9429: 6684:

is fairly accurate, but like any brief summary, it is not perfect: if you can propose better (brief) wording that does not misrepresent Dentzer's piece, please do so here.

6263: 6222: 6027: 5816: 4157: 1528: 1132: 1117: 746: 585: 523: 13765: 13754: 13691: 11435: 9886:

Hmm, come to think of it, shouldn't any effort to document (and perhaps even scientifically support) medical journalism be put into mainspace? I just now created the stub

9303: 8220:

Could you cite a couple of examples of this peer-reviewed research? I'm not sure exactly what is being talked about. For more on TimVickers's proposed wording, please see

4959:"Biomedical encyclopedias published by established medical publishers are often of good quality but the information in there may be too terse for detailed articles. Other 4633: 4295: 4169: 4064: 4043: 3994: 3596: 2926: 1555: 1088: 567: 549: 14085:

section seems to be misunderstood as encouraging editors to pass judgment on whether a secondary source has accurately represented the primary works that it discusses.

11257: 9145:

The statement "there is evidence that the neuroleptic drugs themselves cause loss of brain tissue" is not a social issue but a medical statement that must be sourced per

6738:

If you're going to quote Dentzer, you should quote what she actually said -- the positive and negative. If we can't agree on a summary, then we should use the full quote:

6725:

Her argument is that bad stories are done because some reporters don't understand medicine. She acknowledges in the introduction that some writers do understand medicine.

4528: 4501: 4276: 4097: 4013: 3719: 3033:

topic on WP that is still actively studied? An eight-year-old article on mobile phone technology is also unlikely to document the "state of the art" accurately any more.

3004: 2490: 2269: 15597: 12598:

I disagree, if the source is not reliable we should not list the information. Defining what's "widely believable" with no reliable source to support that information is

10183:

Thanks again, so it seems it is a matter of the editor reading such sources and deciding which parts can be considered 'review' and which parts should not be so cited !

3236:. If that's a problem, then we should go to review articles to solve it. If there's no such problem, then there's no problem. I think this all falls under the rubric of 1979:

secondary sources, which would make the entry MUCH more removed from evidence than would primary sources. However, I did not, and would not, say that literature reviews

15555: 15109: 14996: 14943: 14817:

Yes, what other places say to come here (to the talk page for a discussion, not to the guideline for information) with these kinds of issues? That needs to be fixed.

13529:

Colin's less than brilliant prose recently featured as an example in one of Tony's exercises. Fvasconcellos, respected admin whose brilliant prose and scholarship have

3570: 3099:"Because age isn't the "chief limitation of a review" any more than it is an aspect to consider for any source, be they primary research papers, books, newspapers, etc" 2917:

virtually useless, and although guidelines suggest around 5 years max, what is the unknowledgeable contributor to make of an "ideal source" that is a fair bit older? --

1478: 908: 837:

I do think though that journals own versions of articles (assuming free to access) tend to have better inclusion of tables and charts than the version rendered at PMC.

10158:

If there is a difficult case, there is always the idea of looking at the journal and seeing where in the issue the article is listed and how the journal describes it.

6903:

Now you're saying that neither truth nor verification matter. I want to get that on the record. This discussion is getting too serious, and we need some entertainment.

4692:

including the table of contents, any introductory editor remarks, and so forth. PDF copies sometimes give more info than HTML copies. This is a lot more work, though.

3111:"Scuro, this guideline already says that recent reviews are preferable. Now why are you insisting that this guideline doesn't say that recent reviews are preferable"? 10888:

is online and free. I haven't read that entry carefully, but it hasn't been revised since 2005 and anyway it is pretty terse, so it wouldn't be a good source for the

1443: 12634:"Sources written and reviewed by the advocates of such marginal ideas can be used to describe notable personal opinions". Who says what is notable and what is not?-- 12189:

as a source supporting the fact that somebody has a belief. It has no use as a source of factual statements about reality and should be avoided in medical articles.

11760:"In some areas of the world, mosquitoes that carry malaria have developed resistance to insecticides , while the parasites have developed resistance to antibiotics." 15602:

Yes, the intent of the opening sentence is to apply to the biomedical information in an article, independently of whether the article's topic is itself biomedical.

11184:, the argument is less convincing. My rule of thumb is that most information can be presented on Knowledge, although much of it should be presented in subarticles. 10289:

Second thought: one possible way to highlight this issue is to expand "Editors are encouraged to seek out the scholarly research behind the news story" to include

6664: 6644:

I always take it seriously when people criticize the press, because I have an obligation to find out if I'm doing things wrong and to correct my procedures if I am.

1761:

is not that useful for that purpose: that section's subject is mostly primary studies, which articles shouldn't be emphasizing anyway. I would support a rewrite of

15507:

that X is an expert on Z and that Y is true. For new editors (and particularly) for POV-pushers, cherry picking (particularly in fringe areas) can easily lead to

13530: 12616:

I agree that "if the source is not reliable we should not list the information". I also agree that defining what is "widely believable" with no reliable source is

9765: 3400:

If it is necessary to refer to the research, talk about studies and meta-analyses (though that term usually needs explained) rather than papers and reviews. There

97: 9157:

is an interview in a newspaper, of a scientist discussing research they haven't yet published, and in which they are very careful not to state "cause" but just a

5592:

I think our bigger concern is hiding a lay source behind any scientific paper. You should not cite an scientific paper when you've only read the press release.

3849:

6: Whether or not the author is "unknown" or is "widely known" often has much more to do with efforts at publicity than anyone wants to admit. For example, the

13085: 12983: 9978:. Sources without conflicts of interest should be preferred in my mind, or at the least included, and we should probably have a section on it in this guideline. 8786:

frequency of being wrong or misleading is "too frequently." Even prestigeous medical journals are wrong or misleading sometimes, and that's "too frequently" too.

5473:

Xasodfuih also suggested adding text about third-party summaries. Here I agree that some additional guidance could be helpful, and have proposed some wording in

5466:

in the text. I realize that there are other valid styles but the guideline shouldn't be imposing the styles in an area were we don't have a reasonable consensus.

15588:

wording. I am not a medical expert, but I do expect that MEDRS be sufficiently clear in its scope that even any competent editor can sensibly interpret it. --

13534: 12005:). According to everyone else, those sources are often chosen selectively to remain relevant to the line of research in the article, and therefore less useful. 11827:

issues instead of article inclusion criteria frequently leads to confusion. (I'm not committed to my word choice, just to the removal of the word "notable".)

2495:

That is a good example of the kind of referencing encountered. And not every reader carefully looks at the dates of all references and evaluates accordingly. —

15083: 13938: 1498:

That depends. "Subscription" is somewhat orthogonal to "reliable". "Not mentioned anywhere else" has a weird whiff, but could be OK. Can you be more specific?

1192:, and it privileges medical/biomedical journals as "ideal" or "natural", and it guides people towards medical standards & databases. But then there's this 47: 17: 14765:

noticeboard, watched by experts; but the consensus in the other discussion seemed to be that we lack resources to do it. In the meantime, for occasions where

10461: 4032:

We have made an effort to fix a perceived fault with wikipedia. I'd like to hear if others agree that this gray area is a problem, and if so, can it be fixed?

11247: 9770:

I'd rather not discuss specific content issues here, especially when they're as historically intractable as vitamin supplementation. From the perspective of

9513:

reporters who perform thoughtfully even in the face of breaking news and tight deadlines. But all too frequently, what is conveyed about health news by many

3927: 2120: 2013: 1919: 15455:

that explicitly mention original research papers as examples of primary sources, and review articles as secondary. I've also followed up with discussion at

14503: 13348:; among other things, a publish-all-responses call for commentaries on a peer-reviewed history-of-the-scandal article has resulted in several trips to RSN ( 12560: 11768:

spp are eukaryotes they show little susceptibility to antibiotics, and the few that are active have never been used in treatments since they are not useful

9870: 5846:

I think "too often" is an exaggeration based on the anecdotal evidence in that article (he cites a handful of examples). So I'm changing it to "sometimes".

3583:

Some points are unnecessary. Peer review is usually anonymous but also independent; it would be tautological to insist on "peer review by independent body".

649:

The proposal has only been out for a couple of days; I'm a bit leery to install it now. But if you want to see the diffs, and the new version, please check

13980: 9928:

everybody has a conflict of interest of one form or another, and a review should not be disqualified simply because a reviewer has a conflict of interest.

4400: 2083:

right. Also, propaganda often is made to look real. Simply stating that, "secondary sources aren't perfect", ain't the way to deal with this gaping hole.--

1572:

Just ask someone with full-text access to the citation to verify the claims made on Knowledge. A lot of editors have this sort of access; you could ask at

754: 14870: 14784: 14762: 14666: 13135: 13111: 10267:

Apparently, what we need to add is more attention on my part; I didn't see it in my brief skim-over, and it did seem odd that it wasn't there. Thanks.

4829: 4309: 15002:

sources for that conclusion eg newspapers or journal news articles). I would never use a source like that to state "K-Ras controls p53 ubiquitination".

10898:, which is pretty good: it has a few minor errors and is a bit dated despite its 2009 revision, but overall it would be suitable as a reference for the 4856:

Case reports are basically necessary when writing about extremely rare diseases. (And that reminds me, I've got to get back to exactly that problem at

15245: 14565: 14007: 13475: 12699:

says, explicitly, "While fringe theory proponents are excellent sources for describing what they believe, the best sources to use when determining the

12158: 10481: 10384: 5901: 5829: 4221: 4175: 2640: 2618: 2583: 1612: 1046: 1042: 1031: 650: 11399:) is a primary source about a single phase II trial, and as I understand it the underlying dispute here is over whether it's OK to cite such sources. 10708:

contain a wide range of biomedical information ranging from factual to fraudulent, with a high percentage being of low quality. Peer-reviewed medical

9750:. Although I pointed out the problems in E's coverage at that article's talk page, no one seems interested in providing a neutral overview of poor E. 9482:

for. It is a cliché that "one avoidable death is a death too many", but fortunately the world doesn't get paralysed while we wrap it in cotton wool.

9355: 6158:

Instead, you say that on the basis only of your own personal opinions and prejudices, against newspapers and against things that ordinary people read.

3126: 14622: 9220:), all need sensible interpretation and on occassion discussion between editors as to how best to work on some specific aspect within an article :-) 8380:

comment on the JUPITER study in NEJM, but everybody there -- published academics -- kept telling me that they had only read the New York Times story.

8260:

I haven't gone circular. I was responding to your statement that it would be too difficult to "divine the reporter's level of (relevant) experience."

5331:

policy. An incestuous review is not necessarily an unreliable one, particularly for uncontroversial topics and/or topics with only a few researchers.

2688:

and cite both reviews, the newer one first, with the older one marked as being older but freely readable. Something like this inside the <ref: -->

2410:

It's not that hard to find reviews, even recent reviews, that Knowledge should not cite uncritically. One example would be Nissen & Wolski 2007 (

13568:

It is therefore inappropriate that physiological articles should ideally be sourced upon reviews rather than reliable primary research journal ones.

9204:

is highly notable being from who said it and the public debate this started - indeed I would tend to agree with him on this - yet buildings are not

9168:

is just the sort of medical expert MEDRS would like to cite once she publishes her results in a respectable journal. She's not on "the other side".

8745:

In your book, are the NEJM, JAMA, BMJ Lancet all too frequently wrong or misleading? Or are they acceptably not too frequently wrong or misleading?

7796:

Tim, the problem with your proposal is that a statement can be technically "accurate" while also being "inadequate" and consequently "misleading".

7383:

Often these messages are delivered effectively by seasoned reporters who perform thoughtfully even in the face of breaking news and tight deadlines.

6078:

You could just as easily say that the NEJM gets its peer-reviewed articles wrong "all too frequently". Even 1 is too frequently. You could say that

5778:

The whole point of my addition to the guideline in this matter was to support exactly the practice you described above, which we've converged on at

1948:

sources. Your statement that reviews "filter out noise" is a gross overgeneralization, implying that all literature reviews are equal. They are not.

1444:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-10-09_Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder#Lets_resolve_one_issue_and_go_from_there

12791:

medical claims not supported by mainstream research, it is vital that third-party, independent sources be used. As described at our guidelines for

12538: 11051: 5302:

the original paper writes at length about the issue, and gives us an abstract, which 99% of the time it's free to access, which makes it easier to

5109: 4598:

Today for example I replaced the quote that cranberry juice is effective for UTIs to no evidence supports the use of cranberry juice for UTIs. see

3090: 2816: 2719: 976: 808: 328: 223: 12275:

currently does, is to say nothing, in effect holding CAM up to the same standards as everybody else. I see some problems with the proposal above:

10824:

should be changed anyway, to make it clear that it talks about both online and printed medical texts. How about if I make a separate proposal for

13641:

I disagree with both the assumptions and the conclusion here. It's true that basic physiological processes aren't usually the subject of recent

10532: 5947:

How often is "all too often"? What's the difference in meaning between "too often" and "all too often"? Is once "too often"? More than half? 20%?

3987:. Both are reviews, though they are somewhat different beasts. And focus is an independent issue from whether a review cites sufficient sources. 14362:, although the section focuses on articles, it also briefly talks about publishers and authors, so the word "sources" is not out of place here. 11238:

rather than an in-or-out global rule. As WhatamIdoing says, rare diseases with no current effective treatment might well warrant the mention of

11204:

Wouldn't it be better to try to educate readers what the ramifications/limitations of the different phases are? Then clearly state that it is a

10197:

I think that what Tim is saying is that many journals explicitly publish reviews under a heading like "Review Article". Some journals (e.g. the

5292:

for a train wreck written from a review written where the majority of the substantive references in the review are from the same research group.

2228:

be high-quality secondary sources, but as you have noticed, the quality variable is independent of whether the source is primary or secondary.

15824: 15374:

should all be notified of the discussion. Before doing so, you may want to draft a strawman in your userspace. You may find it helpful to read

15065:) to come along any minute with some original research on abstract reliability, only his will have been published in an academic journal. (see 14966: 13656:

isn't something dreamed up on this page: it is a Knowledge-wide standard that all articles should comply with, regardless of subject matter.

9010:

I propose to leave all that in, or to summarize it, leaving in the parts about good and bad journalists. You think that would be less accurate.

1153:

The fact that there isn't a neutral guideline to reliable sources in multiple fields is a red herring. Nothing in this guideline -- I repeat,

10651:"Statements and information from reputable major medical and scientific bodies may be valuable encyclopedic sources. These bodies include the 6593: 4200:

that contains the series, as an external link. There's also a JAMA series "Users' Guides to Evidence-based Medicine", which has been archived

14229:

Eubulides, I take your point about "studies", although the major point of this section is clearly just that. I'm open to alternative titles.

12896: 12862: 11985: 3461:

21:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC) (Though I think some sources (newspapers) are so far down the quality spectrum that "avoid" is quite justified.

914: 14869:. The commenters all had opinions, but I don't see how that discussion would have played out differently if it had occurred on the proposed 9395:, partly when reporters do not know or cannot convey the results of clinical studies, and partly when they fail to supply reasonable context 1098:- including potentially at the scientific core of a subject. I know those aren't necessarily free to access, I'm just trying to illustrate. 14000: 11957:

Requires at least one RCT as part of the body of literature of overall good quality and consistency addressing the specific recommendation

5234:. The conflict with pan-Wiki standards deserved an immediate removal. I wouldn't have risked an edit war for my other reasons, which are 4162:

Greenhalgh is already cited by MEDRS. I'd be happy for her entire series of articles on papers to be included as external links for MEDRS.

2842:

Argh! I'm with Sandy (and with II) on this one. Editorial judgement trumps "rules". I support a general warning to stick to modern sources

14396:

your point that the term "study" sometimes includes reviews; but often it doesn't, and it'd be better to avoid ambiguity here. How about "

8290:

Dentzer says you might be safe trusting an experienced medical writer. You disagree with Dentzer (but complain that we misrepresent her).

15456: 14498: 13883: 11068:

It seems you not only keep that rule of thumb, but have already generalized it to all other medical editors in the encyclopedia, as your

4655:...The major topics discussed in both plenary and mini-symposium presentations are contained with this volume in succinct mini-reviews... 12739:. But the problem with this is that there are some personal opinions which are notable and encyclopedic. I'll give you one example: the 3351:

If you read my suggested wording, it doesn't say that research articles and review articles should be given the same priority. It says:

2693:

Williams AL, Girard C, Jui D, Sabina A, Katz DL (2005). "S-adenosylmethionine (SAMe) as treatment for depression: a systematic review".

14970: 10725: 10672: 10660: 1096: 13696:

I believe editorial judgment is the best guideline here :) Now, as for essays... MastCell, doesn't that vaguely resemble a challenge?

4761: 147:

is a high-quality index that often generates better results than Pubmed. Unfortunately, it is proprietary and requires a subscription.

15731:

We expect editors to use their best judgment, and to apply guidelines like this one with 'common sense and the occasional exception.'

12068: 12002: 11195: 11084: 9989: 9830: 9761: 6527:

And yet you refuse to follow those academic standards in this MOS, but instead insert your own unfair prejudices against newspapers.

5567: 3425:. It is often better to say nothing, or to say that evidence is lacking, than to attempt to summarize a poorly-reviewed medical area. 3366: 3283: 3194: 2183: 14126:

having dealt with many medical/psychiatric articles recently where primary sources are considered ok. Not only primary sources, but

12861:

WhatamIdoing, these are fascinating issues you bring up. I was interested yesterday in thinking about how to write an article about

10937:

erence, not as an ==External link==. We do occasionally run into people that have a problem with major websites, including, e.g.,

9736: 9546:

experienced journalists. 1+2 implies neither 3 nor 4. Please go read up on logic before suggesting I didn't even read the article.

6784:

Some articles in the popular press, particularly those by experienced reporters, are accurate, while others are wrong or misleading.

3926:

None of those guidelines needs to be "specific to medical reviews". Science doesn't work all that differently in different fields.

1442:

She posted once near the bottom of the thread and I quoted a personal e-mail about the same topic up a little higher in the thread.

654: 15375: 14540: 13432:

Great point. The "in general" may not be a sufficient enough caveat to cover the examples you give. This proposal needs more work.

5461:

to support a point) where it's better to cite the lower-order source on a point. I also share Colin's unease with a guideline that

5338:

Point 4. Don't go there. Abstracts are not substitute sources any more than a movie trailer is a substitute for watching the movie.

4196:

Might be a bit subtle, including them as references, when we're really offering them as further reading. How about linking to this

2165: 8706: 7312:"Dentzer makes a standard argument ... that specialist medical journalists can cover medicine better than generalist journalists." 3979:) is just about the best source we could use. ICBSeverywhere, I think your definition of review matches what others are calling a 2164:

a while ago. I suggested that he cite the reviews and then indicate what they were basing their arguments on. As you can see from

14664: 14543:

contains medical advice about sugar/hyperactivity, wet weather/common cold, sleepwalking, vitamin A/eyesight and duct tape/warts.

13839: 13178:

My short summary is "mere assignment of a PMID does not make it a peer-reviewed article." If anyone has any improvements, please

12890:. How we would go about writing an article is a touchy subject indeed considering the lack of independent MEDRS-quality sources. 6830:

journalist gets every fact wrong every time, the advice about preferring the scientific literature to the popular press stands.

1957:

Literature reviews are NOT a way to reconcile findings that contradict one another, although the author may clarify why findings

15664:

Clearly we don't live in a world of black and white, but the whole purpose of having policies and guidelines is to help us move

12918:

Yeah, I think that's a pretty good idea -- just don't have an article on stuff like that, and let's clarify the intersection of

5193:

Some journals specialize in the publication of third-party summaries of reviews published elsewhere, in particular summaries of

4460:

but I fear that the current thread has strayed from that goal. I suggest that we focus by proposing specific wording changes to

3983:. What you call a "meta-analysis" is just a scientific technique (not a form of literature) -- which tends to be published in a 2848:, but if an older source is better we'd be doing the reader a disservice by sticking to a newer source that happens to be junk. 1291:

proposed now, if any are eventually proposed, I suggest accompanying them with specific examples of why the changes are useful.

15447: 14840: 14767: 14676: 14303:

A lot of it is about study design, but some of it is about other kinds of sources as well (meta-analyses, reviews). How about "

11592: 11173: 9817: 5822: 3655: 12695:

applies if we are talking about particular articles, which it seems to me we may sometimes (but by no means always) be doing.

12084: 6376:

There are techniques that some journalists, and particularly medical journalists, use to make sure they get their facts right.

5631: 3766:

US federal government. Thus this proposed bit of advice would mislead editors into incorrectly rejecting high-quality sources.

14732: 12409: 11271: 11029: 10561:

before his fabrications were revealed, it wouldn't make them a bad editor, just someone who was taken in like everyone else.

3870:

got it right. Whether or not you the author has a good reputation does not make any specific paper be a high-quality source.

3707:

A review can indeed focus on "a very narrow question", and may be just as narrow as a primary research paper. For example, a

1447: 12795:: "While... proponents are excellent sources for describing what they believe, the best sources to use when determining the 12286:(which is clearly pseudoscience and quackery). Any advice we give should not throw out whatever babies are in the bathwater. 10914:

section, which already comments on such such books' terseness and incompleteness, and their problems with being up to date.

10209:

reviews, and say so explicitly. It's not so much a matter of making something up as looking closely at the source yourself.

8799:, like the WSJ, and every major newspaper. The New York Times has a reader's editor, National Public Radio has an ombudsman. 4811:

the original publications. Citing a paper without reading it is (1) prohibited and (2) what your text appears to recommend.

2314:

Now that we have a recent example of a primary study misuse, can we also see a recent example of review misuse in Knowledge?

1106:) 20:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC) p.s. this point has of course been well made already by Kim's pointer to the citation diagram 164: 14688:, so I suggest moving the next two threads off this page (where they are getting ignored) and onto one of the other pages. 14001: 11302:) is a reasonable primary source on one relatively narrow topic, but it has been reviewed multiple times (notably by Fryer 11270:

Ideally, I'd like to see this handled flexibly. In general, I do think we give too much weight to the latest abstract from

10044:, this page is for discussing this policy, not specific sources or specific disputes. However, the advice given already at 9382:

Although some articles in the popular press are accurate, many others are inadequate, misleading, or even completely wrong.

9158: 7776: 7740:

Although some articles in the popular press are accurate, many others are inadequate, misleading, or even completely wrong.

5181: 236: 13033: 12812:

Complete lack of actual reliable sources on the topic as it is well below the fringe/notability horizon in the real world.

11681:

reported improved symptoms and generated tremendous interest, but several controlled studies since have found no benefit."

10474: 10105:

What the author is actually doing matters much more than how some person in the back office happened to code the database.

5868:

work half the time a great achievement, so in his view WaPo should have written the article with that spin. Spin on spin.

3228:

about the state of the primary literature. They're not magical or infallible, and they're probably not even necessary for

2201:

only read the abstract. That is no more going to the source of the information than watching a movie trailer is of a film.

1077:

versions are available outside PMC--the only way of getting most of them all is to check Google Scholar or Scirus as well.

14936:

for a related discussion. I don't think it resulted in any changes to the guideline. What is your opinion on the issues?

13867: 13827: 13706: 13614: 13502: 11772:. I might expect simple mistakes like that in an undergraduate essay, but not a reliable secondary source. Remove links. 9801:, which specifically involves very large doses of vitamins and where the potential harms of such megadoses are relevant. 9721: 6316:

sense. I think this is reasonably obvious in context, but if not, I suppose we could insert further text to clarify this.

5832:

the phrase "news articles too often convey wrong or misleading information about health care" and cited that new source.

2197:

Extrapolation. Taking basic science, animals studies or case notes and extrapolating the findings to the public at large.

14477:

Its contents "MEDRS violation?" were too cryptic; almost nobody outside our little circle would know what that means. I

13941:

page. When you want to let people know that specific articles are in need of responses, you will get more responses at

9748: 9684:

Agree completely. Scientific journals are the best source. This type of question can be decided by a vote if needed.--

15359: 15350:

I agree that we should seek to extend the MEDRS definitions (or something similar) to all science articles, perhaps as

13353: 13304:

I really, really hate the direction that people are taking with attribution. The countervailing arguments are twofold:

1161:

just don't feel like this guideline sufficiently represents your personal POV about the field of medicine in general?

15734:

Have you read the last half of the section on popular press? It gives several examples of information that are often

15086:. Personally I'd be quite reluctant to use an abstract, and replace it ASAP with the actual article once published. 14887:

In the end the editorial (commentary) was included and got same weight as the meta-analysis/review (secondary source).

13787: 12707:

of fringe theories are independent sources." Seems to me to be pretty much the same thing. Would a direct quote help?

6799:

That's what she said -- positive and negative. To use the negative, and ignore the positive, is wrong and misleading.

15970: 13200:

One issue is with the wording, "they are never peer-reviewed". This is not technically true in the sense of informal

12832: 11577:

publish them for exactly the same reasons that a left-wing magazine might print a rant from a right-wing celebrity.

11388:) that discusses phase II trials, presumably along with other evidence. However, the original example given (Dhillon 11172:

Knowledge already documents the substances undergoing clinical trials for Alzheimer's disease. The article is called

9921: 9154: 6188:

or anything else, including facts -- as long as it's agreed on by a majority of the editors working on the guideline.

4602:

I could reference the 1998 Cochrane collaboration study but the best bets people assessed newer literature aswell. --

2220:

Certainly not: If you gave my grandmother a research paper about her high blood pressure, she would be utterly lost.

14973:

is the reason I ask the question incidentally, and a good test case since it's reporting results from a symposium.

12365:

to Stephen Barrett. This type of argumentation seems entrenched and we need to address it Head-On (pardon the pun).

9118: 8782:

JFW, the point I'm making is that it's meaningless to say that newspapers are "too frequently" wrong or misleading.

8170:

It's similar to the literature on outcomes of surgery, which depends on the individual surgeon and the institution.

4407:

those reasons, and not try to resort to "Well, I classify it under MEDRS section 2 part 4(a) as probably being..."

3833:

5: A lack of focus does not demonstrate poor quality -- ever. A paper that reviews general concepts and issues in

15355: 15277: 14552:. This is not meant to restrict or define its scope: This guideline applies to medical information in all articles. 14314:), "How to critically appraise an article". The section's lead sentence should be altered to match the new title: " 14281:

I don't think that there's really very much in this section that isn't directly or indirectly about study design.

14241:

is not the only valid consideration, and this guideline has always encouraged appropriate use of primary sources.

13759:

Not to sidetrack the discussion, but someone should really tell Ben to submit a better picture for his article. :P

12126: 10416: 10231: 7105:

In other words, she believes that some journalists (specialists) are reliable, and others (poorly trained) are not.

1944:

I think what is misunderstood here is my use of the word "hearsay". Reviews are reports about the work of others -

1093:

At the end of the day, Medicine and Medline represent only part of the knowledge that may exist for a given article

15067:

Knowledge talk:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles)/Archive 3#PubMed Central manuscripts vs final versions

4766: 15371: 15363: 14524: 13061:: "roponents are excellent sources for describing what they believe the best sources to use when determining the 11795: 3809:

scholarly paper that primarily discusses other people's research? It is not limited to papers published in some

1380: 1244:

However, in this case, I'm leaning towards a "ain't broke/don't fix" approach. The guideline does not supersede

13451:(My wording is probably not very good; feel free to make alternative proposals if agreed with content). Bests.-- 6655:

I will be interested to see whether you keep that distortion of Dentzer in the entry, or whether you change it.

15796: 15404: 9363: 1896:

ALL editors should cite sources that support their statements, and be prepared to defend those sources, PERIOD.

13231:; I see no particular reason to say that a letter to the editor in an obscure medical journal should be given 9740: 8712:

A lay source is a lay source, accurate or otherwise. Because it is open to accusations of inaccuracy, even if

7440:

I agree with WhatamIdoing that "seasoned" means "experienced", not "specialist". But isn't this a side issue?

4519:

Finally, state that reviews missing certain characteristics are not at all reliable. That would work for me.--

2303:

to support the fringe claim that mercury poisoning a significant cause of autism. This paper is coauthored by

231: 14787:(assuming that we don't have any more resources than we do now)? Also, what "other places say to come here"? 14613: 13779: 13054: 12064: 11996: 11191: 11080: 11069: 10668: 10488:. Charities are a bit iffier, as some have axes to grind. Perhaps wording about them could be proposed here? 9985: 9826: 9757: 9662:. None of the other involved editors want to lower our standard to accommodate his POV. I think we need to 9212:

WP:RS should only seek to confirm the state of knowledge per WP:NPOV and not some abolute truth as we're not

5563: 3362: 3279: 3190: 2179: 13727:

If I don't see an essay in the near future, I'm switching to a different histamine-themed favourite admin.

11180:, yeah, I can see why you wouldn't mention Phase II clinical trials. In less highly-developed articles like 10885: 9797:

mainstream-media reporting, which is one reason I cited it. Another reason is that the citation occurred in

9713: 4798:

Please stop making significant changes to this guideline without discussing them. Here's the disputed text:

3232:- but reviews are very useful to prevent editorial mining and abuse of the primary literature to circumvent 15771: 14958: 14926: 14078: 12342: 12298: 12163: 11670: 11504: 9845: 9697: 9347: 8894:

Where did you get the idea that I am advocating this nonsense about using news stories as the sole source?

2012:

I fail to see the relevance of my association with Scuro OR the number of article edits that I have made.

1448:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-10-09_Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder

15885: 15840: 15023: 14479: 13309: 12362: 7793:

I think that asking the editor to divine the reporter's level of (relevant) experience is asking too much.

6568:

Presumably these are the people that aren't returning your phone calls, so they're not in your sample set.

159: 15929:

Sun-Edelstein C, Mauskop A (June 2009). "Foods and supplements in the management of migraine headaches".

13010: 11870: 11062: 10325: 10294: 5323:

Point 2. Don't confuse "primary/secondary source" with "first/third party". They are separate issues and

4899: 4535: 3414: 2551: 2518: 1762: 1758: 1341: 13173:

This isn't the first time this question has been raised. I've boldly taken a stab at it with this text:

13044:

While many medical subjects are covered by a plethora of reliable sources, there is a sizable number of

12782:

While many medical subjects are covered by a plethora of reliable sources, there is a sizable number of

12545:

controversial claims (everything from "no data exists" to "a tiny minority thinks the Earth is flat").

12518:

While many medical subjects are covered by a plethora of reliable sources, there is a sizable number of

10346:

The statement is still just 'encouragement': "Editors are encouraged to seek out...and to not use..."

9442:

Eubulides, I read an article in the BMJ about doctors who murder patients, which cited several examples.

5556:

and I had originally, so you're not the only one. I don't like obfuscating the original sources either.

5417:

considered a sufficient source for the text of the final sentence. Citing the primary paper is actually

987:

How about modifying the cite journal template so that it tells the reader they're getting a rough copy?

15412: 14710:

seems appropriate as there isn't one specific reliable-source issue for the RS noticeboard to discuss.

14591:

category is called "Health and medicine", and there's also the "Psychology" and "Biology" categories.

14113: 14030: 13437: 13398: 13344: 13329: 13266: 13209: 13096: 13058: 12969: 12943: 12909: 12792: 12748: 12712: 12696: 12677:

still "demands reliable (...) sources" where "sources written and reviewed by the advocates" are not.--

12661: 12625: 12465: 12413:. I regularly have to remove similar fringe material from other articles I help maintain, ranging from 12385: 11925:

Evidence from expert committee reports or opinions and/or clinical experience of respected authorities

11714: 11687: 9892:

to do that. I get the feeling that if even 10% of the effort expended on this thread had been put into

9129:

Mihai, many medical issues are social issues as well, but that doesn't alter their fundamental nature.

5317: 5231: 5202: 4643: 3897:

used as sources. These statements usually cite literature. THAT LITERATURE should be cited as evidence.

3237: 1406: 760: 488:

if neither is possible, you may need to settle for using a lower-impact source or even just an abstract

383:"How do US journalists cover treatments, tests, products, and procedures? an evaluation of 500 stories" 177: 38: 15625:

covers history and social aspects which are clearly outside MEDRS. One the other hand in the case of

14533:

doesn't have a section "Thalidomide in popular culture", but it does have something that comes close:

6480:

That's why I say you're ignoring the data. You haven't spoken to investigators and asked them whether

1107: 304: 15540: 15459:. I don't know if these changes will stick (I'm no expert on the arcane points of Knowledge policy). 15153: 15094: 15062: 14981: 13739: 12025: 11723: 11108:. I think it would be utterly dangerous if we started listing all agents being trialled currently in 10676: 9323: 6932:

source. And I never said that every journalist gets every fact right every time; I cited Schwitzer.)

563: 519: 14497:

use this template to create a new sub-template without discussing and justifying the need for it at

14316:

Several systems exist for assessing the quality of available evidence on medical subjects, and these

12888: 11968:

Requires availability of well-conducted clinical studies but no RCTs on the topic of recommendation

5889: 4256:

evidence based not on a witness's personal knowledge but on another's statement not made under oath.

683:

That's why you make the change in steps, so that your diffs actually make some kind of sense. :-) --

15801: 15626: 15199:

as a guidelines seems close to what is appropriate for the evaluation of conference abstracts and

14847:

and those who should know it and join the discussion usually do so to support their POV. I cite an

14534: 13929: 13342:

For a live example, efforts to promote the POV of certain trans activists have recently resumed at

12290: 12058: 11992: 11185: 11074: 10895: 9979: 9820: 9751: 9701: 9351: 9244: 9216:. I fail to see a conflict therefore between the various WP help pages: none are written in stone ( 8877:

source for medical articles. But we shouldn't use irresponsible news stories. I'm simply following

8421: 7775:

Interesting idea, how would you do this in practice? For example, how experienced is the author of

7319:"The editors of this guideline believe something different. They believe that the popular press is 5742: 5730: 5718: 5557: 4781:. For example, you might find some information on a Web page that is attributed to a certain book. 3931: 3850: 3356: 3273: 3184: 2952:

This guideline advises -- note that this is a direct quote from the guideline -- "Look for reviews

2173: 2124: 2017: 1923: 461: 449: 437: 11485:

On the other hand: perhaps MEDRS is the wrong place for this. Perhaps instead it needs to be at

10806:, or about the other proposed changes? Anyway, surely any mention of The Merck Manuals belongs in 10528:

would be sufficient to enable appreciation of that point, but apparently it needs to be codified.

7134:

The editors of this guideline believe something different. They believe that the popular press is

6423:

That sounds like a trick question, which you could have used against me no matter what I answered.

2863:

Yes, thanks, I reverted that bit of advice as mentioned above (just before you made the comment).

2521:. We have an entire section dedicated to that specific issue. Were you unaware of that section? 572:

No problem. Your changes had good ideas. I took the biggest point and moved it into a new section

15781:

articles". There is a difference between a 'medicine article' and a medicine-related article'.

15391: 15330: 15260:, and their conclusions are often significantly changed or rejected for peer-reviewed publication 14335:

Too vague, and misleading. Source has a technical definition on Knowledge (see the footnotes at

13863: 13823: 13702: 13498: 12991: 12302: 12282:(for which there is scientific evidence of effectiveness, for some conditions) to therapies like 10664: 10652: 9798: 9744: 8299:

the Knowledge editor doesn't know whether the writer should be considered experienced or accurate

5376:

experts. Furthermore, you don't seem to understand that I'm proposing to cite the primary source

4313: 4225: 4182:. I suppose it's a bit much to add all this at once, but I figured why not? It's a great series. 4179: 119: 13469:"How to Critically Appraise an Article: Selection and Critical Appraisal of Research Literature" 13261:

that are subject to more editorial control than many papers published in more obscure journals.

9843:

Agree with MastCell that this thread on Vitamin E doesn't belong here; presumably it belongs in

9789:

That's followed by a fairly detailed breakdown of recent studies on the subject. So I think the

9725: 8831:

Tim, the only reason you're saying that is because the editors here are distorting my position (

5660: 5045: 4979: 1799:

Agree with Eubulides, though would like to clarify that the advice is only good for researchers

898: 344:"Developing a virtual community for health sciences library book selection: Doody's Core Titles" 258:"How to read a paper: Papers that summarise other papers (systematic reviews and meta-analyses)" 15786: 15743: 15522: 15432: 15316: 15186: 14962: 14822: 14740: 14652: 14599: 14464: 14426: 14386: 14344: 14286: 14246: 14179: 14154: 14090: 13988: 13961: 13917: 13899: 13661: 13520: 13375: 13281: 13244: 13187: 13141:

Since that discussion was mentioned in this page I'll take its conclusions as discussed here.--

12852: 12550: 12092: 11909:

Evidence from well-designed non-experimental descriptive studies, such as comparative studies,

11832: 11648: 11622: 11582: 11494: 11461: 11368: 11152: 10963: 10946: 10875: 10789: 10588: 10515: 10467: 10431: 10351: 10302: 10272: 10238: 10120: 9671: 9529:

So Dentzer said that "other journalists" are wrong or misleading, not experienced journalists.

9286: 9165: 8424:

of a news story on Forbes that adds something clinically important that wasn't in the original

8316: 7801: 7417: 6835: 6577: 6406: 5597: 5501: 5247: 4879: 4865: 4819: 4554: 4412: 4343: 4120: 3952: 3879: 3663: 3389:

but one is unlikely to be able to source an FA-comprehensive article to Cochrane and his mates.

2968: 2630: 2606: 2526: 2366: 2233: 2224:

medicine-related articles) is (supposed to be) based upon secondary sources. Ideally, they'll

1414: 1262: 1216: 1166: 15521:

trying to force the idea that the 'wading hypothesis' (a fringe with the fringe theory of the

15503:

DUE weight. I haven't asked anyone at PST to respond, and I should have, thanks for the idea.

14278:," which would make this redundant with the previous section (which is all about PSTS issues). 14203:

Agree. We should not be int the business of "evaluating" primary research studies. Regards, —

5406: 3942:

You might be interested in knowing that Knowledge has a long-standing definition of source in

15964: 15408: 14618: 14123: 14109: 14048: 14026: 13780: 13433: 13394: 13325: 13262: 13205: 13092: 12965: 12939: 12905: 12744: 12708: 12657: 12621: 12461: 12381: 12235: 12212: 12144: 11554: 11007: 10656: 10078: 5705: 5103: 2810: 2758: 2713: 2378:

Also, the use of primary sources is prevalent. "Some claim that Blah."<primary source: -->

1094: 1021: 970: 922: 882: 841: 802: 703: 688: 627: 424: 217: 9729:

fixed). Much better commentary appears in Gann's accompanying editorial on the SELECT trial

8425: 4145: 15383: 15228: 15125: 15042: 15007: 14776: 14685: 14625: 14450: 13949: 13324:

page since it is sometimes done amongst legitimate controversies (not just FRINGE issues)?

12982:

Did this discussion ever go anywhere? I ask because of my involvement in this discussion:

12194: 11777: 11719: 11662: 11566: 11510:

Letters to the editor are not exactly peer review but an extension of it. What is meant by

11177: 11109: 10771: 10163: 10053: 10029: 8925: 8769: 8018: 7784: 7746: 6365:

right. Many news stories, and many WP articles, are misunderstandings of published sources.

4850: 4489:

individual paper or statement might contain, but we can identify the types of sources that

995: 175: 12535:

is singular would clearly be in violation of our guideline against particular attribution.

11640: 10706:

Press releases, blogs, newsletters, advocacy and self-help publications, and other sources

10583:

Perhaps we should list the NIH, WHO, IOM (any others?) as examples. Would anyone object?

10485: 8797: 4204:. That appears to be very must practitioner-focused, but might be useful. Lastly, there's 2728:"Role of S-adenosyl-L-methionine in the treatment of depression: a review of the evidence" 1757:

gave good advice about assessing the quality of a review. Its current assessment section,

1493:

sources that are only available through paid subscriptions and not mentioned anywhere else

8: 15655: 15607: 15464: 15367: 15284: 15267: 14954: 14878: 14792: 14693: 14574: 14512: 14405: 14367: 14326: 14265: 14194: 13848: 13628: 13577: 13483: 13253:

I'm not so sure it's that black-and-white. There are some powerful editorials written in

13160: 13119: 13019: 12656:

certainly applies. Do you disagree? Would wikilinking to either of those two pages help?

12434: 12315: 12172: 12035: 11732:

These should be removed; they don't seem like appropriate encyclopedic links or sources.

11704: 11603: 11446: 11404: 11346: 11325: 10919: 10855: 10833: 10606: 10493: 10392: 10254: 10092: 9933: 9911: 9854: 9640: 9310: 9240: 9201: 9186: 9134: 9098: 8963: 8584: 8512: 8500: 8231: 8133:

That's my summary of the peer-reviewed research on the reliability of popular journalism.

7727: 7576: 7445: 7281: 6689: 6453:

published source -- newspaper or peer-reviewed article -- with the original investigator.

6335: 5909: 5893: 5873: 5851: 5837: 5787: 5767: 5639: 5515: 5486: 5395: 5217: 5169: 5154: 4991: 4927: 4887: 4838: 4697: 4469: 4321: 4233: 4197: 4187: 3822:

being out of date; that's why MEDRS has a separate section that addresses this issue for

3434: 3422: 3159: 2868: 2829: 2648: 2591: 2559: 2431: 2323: 2069: 1778: 1624: 1503: 1428: 1392: 1296: 1281: 1231: 1201: 1128: 1113: 1103: 1055: 662: 608: 581: 14934:

Knowledge talk:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles)/Archive 3#Journal supplement

11334: 11205: 10910:

weren't already citing better sources). Overall The Merck Manuals seem to belong in the

8449:

reliable than the original journal article, by better defining the limits to the study.

7851:. These include evidence-based, peer-reviewed studies of the press coverage of medicine. 6599:

I finally got a chance to read Susan Dentzer's NEJM piece carefully. I realize now that

5658: 3309:

research, and may completely ignore alternative theories. This is not a rare occurrence.

1248:. It is meant to provide helpful advice in limited circumstances. Its limitations are 937: 15953: 15912: 15867: 15509: 15304: 15212: 14910: 14896: 14856: 14780: 14772: 14707: 14681: 14212: 14139: 14060: 13942: 13891: 13858: 13818: 13697: 13673: 13493: 13456: 13421: 13223:

or peer review. Knowledge has a long-standing consensus that letters to the editor in

13146: 12987: 12928: 12726: 12682: 12639: 12607: 12587: 12567: 12112: 12054: 12010: 11748: 11534: 11117: 11045: 10808: 10291:"and to not use any source for which the scholarly research has not yet been published" 10115:

If you've got a question about a specific, then please feel free to share it with us.

9894: 9888: 9260: 8721: 7315:

is secondary, and she never argues for specialist (as opposed to generalist) reporters.

5884: 5779: 5387: 5194: 5092: 4741: 4668: 4584: 4025:

So what I understand you saying is that one should go directly to the primary research?

3591: 3325: 3055: 3019: 2853: 2601:

doesn't mean that it's exempt from the normal rules about using up-to-date evidence."

2504: 2388: 2172:, he agreed with me and did that. It adds wordiness, but I think it is often worth it. 2157: 2043: 1710: 1662: 1616: 1573: 1551: 1315: 865: 818: 786: 762: 545: 408: 382: 359: 343: 281: 201: 14456:

I think I'll use it a lot, and it will help shorten edit summaries and explanations !

11478:

So perhaps a new section might be in order. What do you think of something like this:

10936:

Just to clarify: this is about what is considered acceptable as a proper <ref: -->

9814: 9730: 9273:

that widely accepted principle into "removing a reliable source about a social issue".

5860:

He's slamming WaPo for instance for saying something along the lines "antidepressants

897:

BTW, I find it deeply ironic that Wiley's Epilepsia want me to pay $ 35 to read their

603:

Thanks for catching that. I changed "alternative" to "additional" in the above draft.

118:

contains a database of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and is a key resource in

15946: 15905: 15860: 15782: 15739: 15526: 15428: 15312: 15256: 15196: 15182: 15178: 14818: 14736: 14648: 14640:"These guidelines supplement the general guidelines at Knowledge:Reliable sources..." 14592: 14457: 14422: 14382: 14340: 14308: 14282: 14242: 14175: 14150: 14086: 13984: 13957: 13913: 13895: 13657: 13642: 13608: 13513: 13371: 13320:

out of uncomfortable facts. Perhaps we should relocate particular attribution to the

13277: 13254: 13240: 13183: 12848: 12546: 12167:

as a different kind of specialization in medical journals. Further comments welcome.

12088: 11828: 11807: 11769: 11644: 11618: 11578: 11490: 11457: 11393: 11382: 11364: 11307: 11296: 11243: 11181: 11148: 11026: 11022: 10984: 10956: 10942: 10890: 10868: 10803: 10782: 10584: 10511: 10427: 10377: 10347: 10298: 10268: 10116: 9976: 9969: 9782:

note that the excess mortality was seen with high doses. An entire subsection of the

9733: 9667: 9575: 9534: 9460: 9425: 9391:

Although medical news articles often deliver public health messages effectively, they

9317: 9282: 9058: 8948: 8899: 8814: 8750: 8696: 8660: 8546: 8454: 8399: 8312: 8269: 8175: 7973: 7797: 7764: 7675: 7541: 7431: 7413: 7409: 7395: 7344: 7326: 7235: 6973: 6937: 6831: 6804: 6674: 6660: 6573: 6532: 6402: 6387: 6320: 6303: 6218: 5994: 5986: 5694: 5627: 5593: 5497: 5324: 5285: 5243: 5133: 5085: 5042: 4976: 4861: 4815: 4550: 4408: 4339: 4116: 3984: 3980: 3973: 3948: 3875: 3843: 3708: 3659: 3651: 3646:

It's not all about the source; it's also about how you use it. This is, once again,

3537:

review is several or more review cycles old (unless it is a seminal work) <--: -->

2964: 2793: 2747: 2702: 2623: 2602: 2522: 2411: 2362: 2293: 2229: 2061: 1608: 1410: 1353: 1258: 1212: 1162: 791: 413: 364: 322: 286: 206: 10108:

I have also found errors in the presentation of articles, including straightforward

7926:

In the case of the Bloomberg story on tuberculosis, you could start by rating it on

6213:

If you want to ignore the scientific method that you profess to champion, go ahead.

5095: 3757:

bit of advice would mislead editors into incorrectly rejecting high-quality sources.

1030:

Just found in this dispatches reoport on reliable sources, hidden in the basement..

193: 108: 15956: 15938: 15915: 15897: 15870: 15852: 15686: 15635: 15593: 15545: 15387: 15379: 15326: 15292: 15158: 15099: 14986: 13744: 13681: 13646: 13598: 13390: 13367: 13317: 13258: 13066: 13049: 12891: 12866: 12809:

One poor-quality, obscure, but marginally useable source on a fringe medical topic.

12800: 12787: 12704: 12674: 12673:

doesn't apply, since it "refers to whether or not a topic merits its own article".

12653: 12523: 12366: 12337: 12333: 12250: 12230: 12208: 12140: 11898: 11550: 11486: 11317: 11235: 11018: 10525: 10188: 10135: 9965: 9693: 9343: 6980: 6681: 6600: 5982: 5686: 5677:

Yeung CA (2008). "A systematic review of the efficacy and safety of fluoridation".

5414:

We do not use citations to prove a point; we expect our sources to prove the point.

5296: 5125: 5077: 5065: 4607: 4572: 4291: 4153: 4142: 4112: 3867: 3233: 3221: 2739: 2300: 2169: 1017: 1007: 952: 918: 878: 782: 774: 699: 684: 623: 404: 394: 355: 277: 269: 257: 197: 189: 115: 14783:, why the result was unsatisfactory, and why the result would be different with a 11275: 11139:

Additionally, are we sure that this the right guideline for such a recommendation?

7927: 6382:

guidance on how to distinguish them. You're choosing ignorance. I can't stop you.

5897: 4907:

Knowledge talk:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles)/Archive 2#Uptodate.com

3742:- We are talking about reviews...no? Peer review is a major component of a review. 2727: 2038:, not with us. Please go there. Encyclopedias shouldn't be examining methodology. 15942: 15646: 15514: 15491: 15351: 15224: 15121: 15074: 15038: 15003: 14941: 14866: 14844: 14715: 14274:"Consider the type of source" will be misunderstood as "Classify it according to 13603: 13593: 13588: 13542: 13384:

Good example. The ridiculous text that is passing for analysis at the article on

13363: 12880: 12844: 12828: 12374:

reported by such sources. This point does not seem to be elucidated on this page.

12329: 12272: 12190: 11803: 11773: 11526: 11255: 11213: 11144: 10828:, which mentions The Merck Manuals and also mentions that many books are online? 10767: 10540: 10462:

Talk:Aspartame controversy#Air Force alert needs verifiable & reliable source

10337: 10159: 10070: 10049: 10025: 10008: 9950: 9771: 9663: 9605: 9551: 9487: 9408: 9230: 9221: 9173: 9146: 8921: 8765: 8483: 8014: 7780: 7742: 7017:

The subject of Denzer's article is specialist vs. generalist medical journalists.

6985: 6968: 6610:

news articles too often convey wrong or misleading information about health care.

6556:

As I'm sure I have mentioned several times during these ongoing conversations, I

6313: 6261: 6025: 5619: 5435: 5363: 5235: 4960: 4914: 4712: 4684: 4629: 4524: 4499: 4461: 4457: 4439: 4380: 4274: 4213: 4167: 4095: 4060: 4039: 4009: 3992: 3717: 3698: 3617: 3566: 3488: 3466: 3459: 3269: 3122: 3070: 3038: 3002: 2987: 2954:

published in the last five years or so, preferably in the last two or three years

2922: 2899: 2844: 2573: 2541: 2486: 2454: 2403: 2267: 2252: 2088: 1808: 1766: 1754: 1730: 1604: 1455: 1193: 991: 906: 848: 826: 778: 657:, respectively. The diffs aren't that useful, I'm afraid; the change is too big. 399: 11889:

Evidence from at least one well-designed controlled study without randomisation

9277:(for example, that there should be government policy changes) are social issues. 9255:

I resent Mihai's continued suggestion that I might have a conflict of interest.

2743: 2550:

How about if we append "Avoid older reviews." to the end of the first bullet of

2119:

That said, NO source is error-free and NO source should be beyond questioning.

761:

Turetsky BI, Kohler CG, Indersmitten T, Bhati MT, Charbonnier D, Gur RC (2007).

46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

15651: 15603: 15460: 15452: 15263: 14874: 14788: 14689: 14570: 14508: 14401: 14363: 14322: 14275: 14261: 14238: 14190: 14017: 13976: 13930: 13844: 13653: 13624: 13620: 13573: 13479: 13321: 13179: 13156: 13155:

Sorry, but I can't interpret the previous comment. I don't know what it means.

13115: 13015: 12430: 12311: 12168: 12031: 11700: 11599: 11442: 11400: 11342: 10941:

about the symptoms of swine flu, because they aren't peer-reviewed journals.

10915: 10851: 10829: 10602: 10489: 10468: 10388: 10250: 10088: 9960: 9929: 9907: 9850: 9636: 9334:

I have not been involved and have added some comments similar to those above.--

9213: 9182: 9130: 9094: 8959: 8580: 8508: 8227: 7723: 7572: 7441: 7277: 6685: 6331: 5905: 5869: 5847: 5833: 5783: 5763: 5635: 5553: 5511: 5482: 5391: 5328: 5295:

the sentence is not put by the reviewer in his abstract or conclusions, so the

5213: 5165: 5150: 5081: 4987: 4923: 4883: 4875: 4834: 4693: 4599: 4546: 4465: 4317: 4229: 4183: 3481:"I'd like us to emphasise the spectrum of quality, and range of article types". 3430: 3179: 3155: 2864: 2825: 2778: 2776: 2692: 2644: 2587: 2555: 2427: 2319: 2161: 2065: 1774: 1620: 1499: 1424: 1388: 1292: 1277: 1227: 1197: 1147: 1124: 1109: 1099: 1051: 1013: 658: 604: 577: 127: 13794: 12735:

Believe me, I'd prefer to exclude all the personal opinions and just stick to

12087:. A pilot study like this is not a sufficient source for an entire section. 10387:

at mentioning academic medical center press releases, and citing that source.

7369:

Dentzer never says either "specialist" or "generalist", or anything like that.

6882:

Some people say that what matters on Knowledge is not truth, but verification.

6673:

The preceding comment greately misrepresents the main thrust of Dentzer 2009 (

6253: 2779:"S-adenosylmethionine (SAMe) as treatment for depression: a systematic review" 2308: 938:"Open access and accuracy: author-archived manuscripts vs. published articles" 15548: 15537: 15308: 15204: 15161: 15150: 15102: 15091: 15056: 15028: 14989: 14978: 14906: 14892: 14852: 14204: 14131: 14052: 13811:

trigger, as may many other food additives and naturally occurring substances.

13761: 13747: 13736: 13718: 13687: 13478:

that here in March. Medscape is pretty slow, compared to our better editors.

13452: 13417: 13313: 13305: 13228: 13142: 13081: 12961: 12924: 12884: 12736: 12722: 12678: 12635: 12603: 12583: 12563: 12371: 12106: 12006: 11866: 11824: 11744: 11734: 11530: 11431: 11113: 10753: 10563: 10448: 10363: 10211: 10174: 10147: 10041: 9299: 9256: 9217: 8717: 8492:, but I certainly wouldn't want my doctor prescribing it for me based on the 5981:

It's bad writing, because it's meaningless. In WP terms, it seems to violate

5812: 5354:

review provides, even if it is just a literature review and isn't systematic.

5239: 4857: 4737: 4664: 4580: 4115:" are officially exempted from the hearsay rule in the modern legal rules.) 4104:

I believe Scuro is using this term in something akin to the legal concept of

4087: 3855: 3834: 3805:

Are you aware that the definition of a scientific "review" properly includes

3587: 3321: 3317: 3242: 3047: 3011: 2849: 2496: 2380: 2039: 1706: 1654: 1578: 1543: 1524: 1474: 1368: 1307: 1084: 956: 861: 742: 560: 537: 516: 273: 15578:

applies to the accuracy of that biomedical information. Elsewhere straight

13105:

Perhaps too much is being read into the last sentence? If, for example, the

10989:

Ensure the book is up-to-date, unless a historical perspective is required."

10249:

If this doesn't state the point sufficiently clearly, what should be added?

5063: 5006:

OK, thanks for the comments; how about this idea instead? Add a new section

2478: 763:"Facial emotion recognition in schizophrenia: when and why does it go awry?" 15949: 15908: 15901: 15863: 15856: 15579: 15529: 15017: 14891:

source should be used is beyond the remit of this board". Too much noise.--

14588: 14487: 14311: 13728: 12617: 12599: 12582:

Yes, we can take that up later, when we have a concrete example. regards,

12294: 11914: 11810: 11396: 11385: 11310: 11299: 11291:

This particular case does not seem to be an exception to the rule. Dhillon

10743: 10554: 10507: 10380: 9975:) and the recent review on the NEJM on publication bias in antidepressants 9972: 9571: 9530: 9456: 9421: 9123: 9054: 8944: 8895: 8878: 8810: 8746: 8692: 8685:

There are several services like that. Another popular one is Journal Watch.

8656: 8542: 8450: 8395: 8335: 8265: 8171: 7969: 7760: 7671: 7537: 7427: 7391: 7347: 7329: 7231: 6976: 6933: 6800: 6677: 6656: 6528: 6383: 6323: 6306: 6214: 6185: 5990: 5697: 5690: 5422: 5270: 5136: 5129: 5088: 4783:

Unless you look at the book yourself to check that the information is there

4205: 4201: 4083: 3976: 3846:(and vice versa). Quality is independent of the narrowness of the subject. 3827: 2796: 2750: 2705: 2414: 2296: 2035: 1349: 794: 499: 416: 367: 209: 135: 15482:

policies upon which our guidelines are built, then everything falls apart.

12875: 12871: 10846: 9502:

Colin, did you read Dentzer's article before making that change? She says:

7609:

Eubulides, please answer my question. Do you agree that Dentzer is saying:

6371:

was wrong. I doubt it, because you're engaging in prejudiced stereotyping.

5608:

Using journals that specialize in summaries of reviews published elsewhere

4316:

should provide ample resources for editors wishing to challenge a review.

289: 15682: 15669: 15631: 15589: 15288: 14644: 14530: 14359: 14336: 14307:"? This title was inspired by the cited source Young & Solomon 2009 ( 13201: 13062: 13045: 12919: 12840: 12796: 12783: 12740: 12700: 12692: 12670: 12649: 12519: 12279: 11910: 11820: 11511: 11320:, primary sources may be the best we can do, and in that case they're OK. 10329: 10184: 10131: 10109: 9685: 9335: 9150: 5303: 4756: 4603: 4335: 4287: 4178:

the entire series, as citations, with Greenhalgh's book in a new section

4149: 4079: 3943: 3749: 3445: 2956:". Now why do you keep asserting that "MEDRS states nothing about this"? 1245: 731: 508: 305:"Brandon/Hill selected list of print books for the small medical library" 15026:

is some interesting reading on the subject - in abstract form, no less.

11819:

I've made a minor change to remove the word "notable". The use of this

11668:

I searched that site for "autism" and wasn't impressed. Compare this in

11313:), and Knowledge should be citing these reviews, not the primary source. 7640:

Often these messages are delivered effectively by experienced reporters.

7514:

Often these messages are delivered effectively by experienced reporters.

5053:

Finally, append the following example just before the last paragraph of

3010:

prescribing practices have changed since then. Is this what you mean? —

15518: 15487: 15070: 14937: 14711: 13538: 13385: 13357:) over whether you can selectively quote the opinion of a non-academic 11764: 11251: 11209: 10740: 10536: 10333: 10066: 10046:

Knowledge:Reliable_sources_(medicine-related_articles)#Choosing_sources

10004: 9946: 9601: 9547: 9483: 9404: 9169: 6257: 6021: 5615: 5431: 5359: 4910: 4708: 4680: 4625: 4520: 4495: 4435: 4376: 4270: 4209: 4163: 4091: 4056: 4035: 4005: 3988: 3713: 3694: 3613: 3562: 3510:

Here is a crack at spectrum analysis of determining quality in Reviews.

3484: 3462: 3455: 3118: 3066: 3034: 2998: 2983: 2918: 2895: 2569: 2537: 2482: 2450: 2304: 2263: 2248: 2084: 1804: 1726: 1451: 902: 822: 13053:

medical claims not supported by mainstream research, it is vital that

12271:

This is a tricky area and obviously the simplest thing, which is what

12030:

typically not reviewed nearly as carefully as a real review would be.

8691:

Kolata is a PhD. Is Uptodate any more reliable than Altman or Kolata?

8481:

The above examples all seem to be highlighting primary studies, which

6565:

that says it was adequately and accurately represented in all of them.

5116:

Yeung CA (2007). "Fluoride prevents caries among adults of all ages".

15674:

burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material

15200: 13358: 12821: 12283: 10724:, along with websites of government health organizations such as the 9659: 8832: 6925: 6603:

distorts Denzer's article through selective misquotation. MEDMOS says

5230:

Actually, I oppose it for more reasons than simply its conflict with

4944:

OK, how about something like this? Let's remove the last sentence of

3534:

reviewed literature comes from well known and well respected journals

15118:

Knowledge:Reliable_sources_(medicine-related_articles)#Other_sources

14319:

Sources for biomedical topics often vary widely in quality, and this

1653:

Yes, although in practice I have never found sourcing help there. —

176:

Bannen RM, Suresh V, Phillips GN Jr, Wright SJ, Mitchell JC (2008).

15533: 15146: 15087: 15052: 14974: 13808: 13732: 13076: 12865:

which is essentially a dietary supplement hawked by self-described

12421: 11678: 11426: 11005: 10748: 10720: 10443: 10423: 9898:

we might have a useful article there by now. (And no, that's not a

7848: 5807: 5022: 4968: 2687:

What I've done in cases like these are to use a single <ref: -->

1519: 1469: 1079: 737: 636:

try split it into multiple edits, one paragraph at a time, perhaps.

556: 512: 13057:, independent sources be used. As described at our guidelines for 12083:

On a related note, Tekaphor, I'd like to thank you for edits like

9393:

too often convey wrong or misleading information about health care

7844: 4807:

the original publications. It does not mention ever bothering to

122:. Its reviews are generally considered to be of very high quality. 13956:

have some non-mainstream sources. AltMed topics are like that.

9455:

Would you agree that doctors all too frequently murder patients?

9205: 7408:

I think it means "experienced", and so does the dictionary. See

5659:

National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia) (2007).

5345:

Here's what I wrote at the Water Fluoridation FAC on this topic:

4331: 4105: 3858:, a scientific celebrity, wrote some embarrassing nonsense about 2724:

A freely readable but older review supporting the same claim is:

2345:

reviews that contributors used long past their "best before" date

503: 11013:. In Byrne JH (ed.-in-chief), Roediger HL III (vol. ed.) (ed.). 10480:

Clearly the CDC website is a reliable source, so I was bold and

9633:

particularly when they are written by by inexperienced reporters

9164:

I am really puzzled why this is regarded as a neutrality issue.

7200:

journalists in the popular press are reliable, and some are not.

6928:). I never said that anyone should use the popular press as the 5661:"A systematic review of the efficacy and safety of fluoridation" 5421:. The primary paper makes no mention of "Fit for Life" so it is 4777:

It is improper to obtain a citation from an intermediate source

935: 14504:

Knowledge talk:WikiProject Inline Templates #New template MEDRS

13894:, which is watched by about four times the number of editors. 13533:, has nothing to feel humbled about. Sandy, what on earth does 13393:

which seems to be the thorn in the side of most POV-advocates.

12960:

I took the silence here and below to be assent. If I am wrong,

12847:, it might be worth linking the Wiktionary page in this text. 12415: 10906: 10900: 10084: 6401:

arguing that it ought to be good enough for Knowledge, right?

5289: 4779:

without making clear that you saw only that intermediate source

712:

I hope you won't unrevert-war with me. That'd be a novelty! ;-)

152: 144: 15311:. This page is for efforts to improve the guideline itself. 14421:

IMO, the point of this section is the second, not the first.

13837:

Thanks, I added wording along those lines, and followed up at

8579:

My personal qualifications are irrelevant to this discussion.

1689:

hypotheses against each other and consider their plausibility.

1440:

The "Therapeutics Initiative" IS an anti-pharm activist group.

15618: 10716: 9651:

Perhaps more importantly, this is not a mainspace article on

7470:

It's not a side issue, it's a factual distortion of a source.

6966:

The proposed text is not an improvement on what's already in

5018: 4964: 3842:

review can be of much higher quality than a poorly conceived

3650:. This is every bit as true if you're trying to write about 877:

That's a very useful article! We can even reference it ;-) --

15486:

that fails to acknowledge that is being too simplistic IMO.

14865:

The commenters in that example seemed fairly well versed in

11147:

and to guidelines that do not address editors' real needs.

10598: 8285:

without checking it against the proper scientific literature

7332:) wrote (albeit more politely, which is appropriate for the 7273: 4141:

Here is two articles from the BMJ about assessing quality.

2361:

is in favor of killing low-quality and biased references.

1769:'s target audience). Of course this will take some work. ... 473:

Comments on Draft replacement for Periodicals, Books, Online

302: 15622: 15407:

was attempted at one point. Please feel free to revive it.

13884:

Talk:Thiomersal controversy#Introduction Neutrality Dispute

12460:

written about in this encyclopedia. How do we handle this?

10999: 10995: 10983:

Many medical books are published online, and some, such as

9786:

article is entitled "Too Much of a Good Thing", and states:

8958:

into the ground enough that it's probably time to move on.

6312:"Too often" means too often to be a reliable source in the 5284:

the reviewer is citing a primary study of his own, so he's

4736:

published these papers without any peer review whatsoever.

3530:

published in well-known and well-respected academic journal

1683:

a montage of correspondence, on reviews and citable sources

1446:

Ironically, this issue came to light at Doc James Med Cab.

15928: 15738:

best sourced to the peer-reviewed scientific literature.

13555:

Guidelines should not cover medical-physiological articles

12874:

and the supplement has been subject to clinical trials by

10894:

article regardless of any factual errors. I just now read

9624:

I strongly disagree with the recent change "news articles

5066:"Effectiveness of fluoride in preventing caries in adults" 1466: 15568:

Knowledge article which includes biomedical information,

15457:

WT:NOR #Deletion of examples of primary sources from PSTS

13937:

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the

10976:

Proposed rewording for Books and for Formatting citations

10576: 9631:

convey wrong or misleading information about health care

8943:

Unfortunately I'm outnumbered. That's Knowledge for you.

6826:

be the same even if Dentzer had never written that piece.

4146:

http://student.bmj.com/back_issues/0200/education/24.html

3859: 3449:

they should not be excluded from contributing. There are

2643:

that change. Suggestions for better wording are welcome.

155:

is a proprietary index on nursing and allied health care.

13649:

available, such as college and medical school textbooks.

13008:

Yes, it was installed, and after further edits it is in

12883:, and, ironically, perhaps the most neutral source is a 11514:

is that an article is reviewed by independent reviewers

7722:

misleading.", which is the text most-recently proposed.

6319:

It's not just this source; for example, Schwitzer 2008 (

5753:

This cites the main review (which is along), along with

5030:

Also, create a new paragraph after the 2nd paragraph of

4262:

a principle or movement militantly defended or supported

4111:(Other readers of this page may be amused to know that " 3794:. - Who said anything about publicity or self-promotion? 3385:

A few points on the above (sorry if a little off-topic)

2777:

Williams AL, Girard C, Jui D, Sabina A, Katz DL (2005).

2194:

Cherry picking. Picking some studies rather than others.

14843:, usually the first people to answer are not used with 12984:

Knowledge:Articles_for_deletion/Color_light_acupuncture

12839:

More helpfully, given the number of people that ask at

11897:

Evidence from at least one other type of well-designed

11377:

Surely it's OK to cite a reliable review such as Fryer

8445:

So a news story that meets Schwitzer's criteria can be

6983:

point of view. I'm not saying that the current text in

5864:

half the time", when he thinks that the fact that they

4456:

This talk page is supposed to be a forum for improving

2517:

says that editors should use up-to-date evidence. See

15812: 15810: 15345:

Question about MEDRS, definitions and science articles

14647:

will often come under the scope of this guideline. --

12652:

is the general notability guideline, but here I think

10847:#Proposed rewording for Books and Formatting citations 6449:

First, I said that I would verify my understanding of

4882:

can used to tag wiki articles that have this problem.

3316:

People do indeed cling to rules, which is why we have

1043:

Dispatches 2008-06-30: Sources in biology and medicine

18:

Knowledge talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)

13840:

Talk:Aspartame controversy #Association with migraine

7196:

Any reference to Dentzer must preserve the idea that

5064:

Griffin SO, Regnier E, Griffin PM, Huntley V (2007).

4878:, especially one that contradicts published reviews. 3178:

Scuro, you're making points similar to the ones that

3113:- Well lets look at grey areas or what the guideline 1423:

Yes, that's what I meant, and thanks for clarifying.

341: 15883: 15838: 14077:

Yes, of course. But that point is fully covered in

12923:

probably dandy as part of a guideline ;-). regards,

12831:, and the unsupportable claims made by an editor at 12410:

Talk:Water fluoridation #As a public policy decision

12278:

CAM is a broad area, and ranges from therapies like

9570:

Colin, please go back and re-read the word "other."

5651:

thread, I've changed the citation to look like this:

4952:, which would appear after that section (and before 2725: 2568:

Simple...sure, it's better then what is there now.--

2064:). We can't overturn that policy in this guideline. 15807: 15672:states that in the case of submitting content "The 14541:

List of common misconceptions#Human body and health

14149:secondary sources instead of about study designs. 13801:

Sheesh. Why not simply reword the statement to read

13512:In the presence of Colin, all bow and be humbled! 11802:"A 2009 U.S. study found the average age of formal 11758:Piece of sh*t, in the article on malaria it states 9372: 4030:Can I focus all on the questions asked previously: 1252:clear to everyone, because nobody has reported any 1047:

Dispatches 2008-07-28: Find reliable sources online

249: 12867:"brain fitness guru of our time", Joshua Reynolds 9509:Often these messages are delivered effectively by 5626:Some examples I've encountered recently are NPG's 4090:forbids us from all but trivial "interpretation". 1032:Knowledge:Knowledge Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches 576:above. I also edited the changes further. Thanks! 502:, and am dubious about its inclusion. We're not 14548:"For simplicity this guideline refers to medical 12328:Perhaps a section discussing the interactions of 10694:, and make the following changes to its contents: 6972:, as it less-accurately summarizes Dentzer 2009 ( 13606:certainly would have something to say about the 11242:promising, solid research. I don't see what the 10739:I would specifically add both the professional 9747:article by experienced medicine editor MastCell 5898:a recent CBS News story on lunchtime liposuction 4143:http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/315/7103/305 3648:not an issue that is specific to medical reviews 2880:. -- This is an example of a blurb from the NIH. 2763:: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of December 2023 ( 2348:reviews that are not reviews but more propaganda 98:Draft replacement for Periodicals, Books, Online 14612:Neither. I am afraid there may be a dispute at 13939:WP:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles) 13447:a good idea to specifically say something like 10533:Australasian_Journal_of_Bone_and_Joint_Medicine 10024:secondary sources - that is original research. 8541:Eubulides, you're not a medical doctor, right? 5894:a recent ABC News story on platelet-rich plasma 3826:sources. You will find a related statement at 3533:reviewed literature is not academic <--: --> 573: 12648:We have guidelines which give us a good clue: 11843:Previous version of "Address evidence quality" 11015:Learning and Memory: A Comprehensive Reference 10597:That sounds reasonable; I've proposed that in 9524:We agreed that "seasoned" means "experienced." 7390:What do you think "seasoned reporters" means? 6924:(BTW, you're misrepresenting my position too ( 5634:(prolly not in JCR either, have not checked). 5269:the original paper may be published in a more 1401:I assume that you mean "it would be better to 14949:would be inclined to use such documents with 14761:I agree that it would be very nice to have a 14414:That phrase means two unrelated things to me. 10574:I suspect that "J/K ;)" means "Just Kidding 8334:above. You treat it like anything else under 4963:include online medical encyclopedias such as 1765:to make it more useful to Knowledge editors ( 178:"Optimal design of thermally stable proteins" 15668:more objective discriminants. For example, 15445:I have tried to follow up at this by making 12820:Along these lines, I've been thinking about 12258:Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) 11050:: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list ( 11006:Dawson M, Mottron L, Gernsbacher MA (2008). 10802:Are the 3 comments above specifically about 9376:thread above, which was getting a bit long.) 9089: 5890:a recent ABC News story on "cooking" cancers 5108:: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list ( 4600:http://www.bestbets.org/bets/bet.php?id=1324 2815:: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list ( 2718:: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list ( 2307:, who has serious credibility problems (see 975:: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list ( 807:: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list ( 755:PubMed Central manuscripts vs final versions 327:: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list ( 255: 222:: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list ( 14499:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Inline Templates 14377:"speculative proposals" at the very bottom. 13716:I'd prefer to call it an "opportunity". :) 13136:Use of inconclusive commentary as a source. 12559:@WhatamIdoing: agreed (also ditto 2/0 above 11333:I'm dubious about encouraging jargon like " 8920:on how to improve the text of this policy. 8222: 7755:Yes, that's better than what we've got now. 7491:Do you agree, then, that Dentzer is saying: 1832:Good citations do so. Bad citations do not. 380: 15251:; often they have no review at all and are 14971:Chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency 14779:. Can you give an example of trying (say) 14771:is useless, this talk page suggests using 14418:meta-analysis, which is strong evidence"). 13596:is certainly not intended to apply to the 11743:The House of Hype. Shoot on sight please. 11002:number for the overall book. For example: 10673:Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 8839:said that the popular press should be the 3785:- No, but it can demonstrate poor quality. 15177:I think that they ought to be considered 12872:medical doctors and masters of science(!) 11671:Autism therapies #Prescription medication 5882:Take a look at the current front page of 4956:), and would contain the following text: 3654:as it is if you're trying to write about 3538:review from previous or last review cycle 2479:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/900284 1705:characters who ride their hobby horses). 936:Goodman D, Dowson S, Yaremchuk J (2007). 785: 407: 398: 358: 280: 200: 15303:You might want to move your requests to 14587:Not sure if this adds anything, but the 11823:on Knowledge in contexts that relate to 10599:#Proposed rewording for Websites section 7274:#Popular press is generally not reliable 5676: 5474: 5115: 1014:I look forward to reading your new page! 15886:"How to critically appraise an article" 15841:"How to critically appraise an article" 15823:was invoked but never defined (see the 15777:No, it's not. It's title is "medicine- 13807:In some people, aspartame may act as a 13731:might have some comments on his blog. 11688:Dr Greene's page on autism and secretin 10631:Proposed rewording for Websites section 9737:Extra Vitamin E: No Benefit, Maybe Harm 7325:This is pretty much what Dentzer 2009 ( 7306:Popular press is generally not reliable 3215:It might be worthwhile backtracking to 532:WLB, if you look above on this page to 14: 14841:Knowledge:Reliable sources/Noticeboard 14768:Knowledge:Reliable sources/Noticeboard 14677:Knowledge:Reliable sources/Noticeboard 14569:(it was a surprisingly small change). 13890:You might want to move this thread to 12901:Knowledge: Notability (medical claims) 12815:One determined single-purpose account. 11017:. Vol. 2. Academic Press. pp. 759–72. 10048:seems to apply well to this instance. 9732:or in the article's discussion itself 8809:of course she turned out to be right. 8297:I say this is all irrelevant, because 5552:This is one of the disagreements that 5327:is not the relevant policy. We have a 5164:together (see for further details)." 4541:Furthermore, your putative problem is 3656:Disseminated intravascular coagulation 3546:author is widely known expert in field 3545:author is unknown in field <--: --> 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 15069:for the last time this happened) :-) 14733:Knowledge:Fringe theories/Noticeboard 14535:Thalidomide#Notable children affected 14237:controlled trial on the same point. 13531:won the unanimous praise of his peers 11986:Sources cited within primary research 11176:. In a highly-developed article like 11174:Alzheimer's disease clinical research 9778:article far too hastily. In fact, it 2473:Yes, it does tell you what wikipedia 303:Hill DR, Stickell H, Crow SJ (2003). 15890:Nat Clin Pract Gastroenterol Hepatol 15845:Nat Clin Pract Gastroenterol Hepatol 15621:is entirely MEDRS in scope, but the 15358:is the place to discuss it and that 14002:Hair analysis (alternative medicine) 13654:the preference for secondary sources 12827:On the other hand -- thinking about 10814:Medical and scientific organizations 10642:Medical and scientific organizations 9653:Role of popular press in health care 7336:). Here's Dentzer's main conclusion: 5964:All too often, this MOS is nonsense. 5405:any. Look at the conclusion of your 4948:and move it into into a new section 4770: 3783:5. Focus is not a matter of quality. 3541:author's focus is narrow <--: --> 25: 15815: 13615:Template:Musculoskeletal physiology 11806:diagnosis was 5.7 years." (citing 11639:It looks like this was resolved at 3423:synthesize it to advance a position 2210:people that work in the same field. 1753:I agree that it would be better if 915:It's not as common as it used to be 23: 15360:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Science 15116:I've added 2 sentences on this at 14501:", so I just now created a thread 14079:WP:MEDRS#Respect_secondary_sources 12843:about whether "third-party" means 10886:Merck Manual's entry on Tourette's 9322: 9321: 9313:: confused use of research sources 24: 15986: 15645:sources, and the advice given in 15376:WP:Scientific_citation_guidelines 14507:to give that project a heads-up. 14398:Consider reviews and study design 14353:That's an important point of the 13652:It's also worth remembering that 13011:WP:MEDRS #Use independent sources 12833:Endoscopic thoracic sympathectomy 12161:with an edit that also mentioned 11565:Such letters work a lot like the 11316:For rarer diseases such as (say) 10040:That's really a question for the 9871:Scientific evidence for guideline 9774:, you're actually dismissing the 8918:specific and concrete suggestions 6436:No, your interpretation is wrong. 4803:Note that your text says only to 3526:peer reviewed by independent body 3415:WP:MEDRS #Use up-to-date evidence 2943:entirely separate considerations. 2935:Scuro, I have two points for you: 2552:WP:MEDRS #Use up-to-date evidence 1763:WP:MEDRS #Assess evidence quality 1759:WP:MEDRS #Assess evidence quality 498:dangerous grounds, very close to 14008:What "assess the evidence" means 13857:Excellent, glad I could help :) 13645:, but there are other excellent 13310:WP:FRINGE#Particular attribution 12836:should) address this issue here. 11104:I was referring specifically to 11023:10.1016/B978-012370509-9.00152-2 10575: 10293:. Also, a link to our article, 9793:piece is actually an example of 4536:WP:PEREN#Define_reliable_sources 2519:WP:MEDRS#Use_up-to-date_evidence 29: 15372:Knowledge:Village pump (policy) 15364:Knowledge talk:Reliable sources 11881:Evidence from at least one RCT 10896:the Merck Manual's autism entry 10297:, might not be out of place. 9373:#Medicine and the popular press 4762:Citing sources you haven't read 4624:No proper peer review? Eeeek.-- 4543:not specific to medical reviews 4373:they have nothing else to go on 2639:All good points, thanks, and I 2351:reviews of questionable quality 1034:.. 15:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC) 15922: 15877: 15832: 15405:Knowledge:Scientific standards 14953:caution, particularly if it's 13024:17:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 12996:12:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC) 11593:Medically unexplained symptoms 5823:Medicine and the popular press 5034:, with the following content: 5014:, with the following content: 4971:, along with journals such as 3866:less well-known (at the time) 3230:every single sourcing question 2160:brought this issue up over at 1700:I have stated before that the 374: 342:Shedlock J, Walton LJ (2006). 335: 310:. Mt. Sinai School of Medicine 296: 13: 1: 15969:: CS1 maint: date and year ( 15884:Young JM, Solomon MJ (2009). 15839:Young JM, Solomon MJ (2009). 15748:20:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 15691:15:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 15660:04:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 15640:01:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 15612:00:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 15598:00:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC) 14839:I do have a problem with the 14657:14:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC) 14629:07:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC) 14614:List of common misconceptions 14431:22:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC) 14410:21:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC) 14391:19:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC) 14321:should be kept in mind ...". 14025:or something of that nature. 13993:22:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC) 13966:17:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC) 13948:I would be surprised if this 13922:06:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC) 13904:06:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC) 13873:19:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC) 13853:19:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC) 13833:13:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC) 13766:23:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC) 13755:22:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC) 13723:21:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC) 13712:21:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC) 13692:21:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC) 12876:three PhD research scientists 12697:WP:FRINGE#Independent sources 12026:WP:MEDRS #Biomedical journals 11677:"A 1998 study of the hormone 10669:National Institutes of Health 10324:absolute rules. BTW: perhaps 9726:our selenium article reflects 6582:19:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC) 6537:06:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC) 6411:05:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC) 6392:23:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC) 6340:21:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC) 6264:21:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC) 6223:21:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC) 6053:good, as others have argued . 6028:19:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC) 5999:18:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC) 5914:18:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC) 5878:11:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC) 5856:11:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC) 5817:05:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC) 5792:03:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC) 5772:18:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC) 5644:13:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC) 5622:12:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC) 5572:18:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC) 5520:03:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC) 5506:18:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC) 5491:18:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC) 5438:17:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC) 5400:16:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC) 5366:13:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC) 5252:18:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC) 5222:11:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC) 5174:11:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC) 5159:00:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC) 4996:18:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC) 4946:Biomedical journals and books 4932:13:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC) 4917:12:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC) 4892:06:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC) 4870:05:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC) 4843:05:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC) 4824:05:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC) 4747:20:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC) 4715:22:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC) 4702:19:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC) 4687:08:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC) 4674:22:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC) 4652:basic science perspectives... 4634:20:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC) 4612:16:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC) 4590:13:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC) 4559:20:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC) 4529:12:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC) 4502:08:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC) 4474:06:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC) 4444:05:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC) 4417:23:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC) 4385:22:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC) 4348:21:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC) 4326:16:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC) 4296:13:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC) 4277:08:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC) 4238:16:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC) 4216:12:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC) 4192:09:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC) 4170:23:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC) 4158:22:08, 14 December 2008 (UTC) 4125:21:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC) 4098:20:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC) 4065:20:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC) 4044:18:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC) 4014:16:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC) 3995:19:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC) 3957:20:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC) 3936:17:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC) 3884:21:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC) 3720:08:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC) 3703:07:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC) 3668:02:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC) 3525:not peer reviewed <--: --> 3065:that MEDRS needs to rule on. 2726:Mischoulon D, Fava M (2002). 2617:Likewise, I'm unconvinced by 2340:Dated and low-quality reviews 2188:23:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC) 2129:23:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC) 2093:21:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC) 2074:20:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC) 2049:23:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC) 2022:23:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC) 1928:18:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC) 1811:09:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC) 1783:06:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC) 1735:01:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC) 1716:22:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC) 1667:21:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC) 1629:20:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC) 1615:so that it now also suggests 1583:19:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC) 1556:19:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC) 1529:09:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC) 1508:06:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC) 1460:05:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC) 1405:cite its sources directly"? 1373:19:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC) 1358:17:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC) 1320:22:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC) 1301:21:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC) 1286:20:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC) 1267:17:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC) 1236:11:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC) 1221:18:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC) 1206:11:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC) 1171:19:53, 24 November 2008 (UTC) 194:10.1093/bioinformatics/btn450 103:Sections of draft replacement 15943:10.1097/AJP.0b013e31819a6f65 15556:13:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC) 15494:22:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC) 15469:21:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC) 15437:20:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC) 15417:20:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC) 15398:19:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC) 15337:21:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC) 15321:20:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC) 15297:20:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC) 15272:22:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC) 15233:18:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC) 15217:00:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC) 15191:23:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC) 15169:23:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC) 15130:21:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC) 15110:21:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC) 15077:20:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC) 15047:19:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC) 15033:19:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC) 15012:17:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC) 14997:16:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC) 14944:15:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC) 14915:23:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC) 14901:21:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC) 14883:20:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC) 14861:20:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC) 14827:20:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC) 14797:19:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC) 14745:15:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC) 14718:08:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC) 14698:07:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC) 14604:18:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC) 14579:18:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC) 14517:06:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC) 14469:02:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC) 14372:04:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC) 14349:04:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC) 14331:02:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC) 14291:02:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC) 14270:16:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC) 14251:00:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC) 14217:00:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC) 14199:23:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC) 14184:23:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC) 14159:23:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC) 14144:22:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC) 14118:22:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC) 14095:22:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC) 14065:22:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC) 14035:21:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC) 12804:or, worse, asserted as fact. 12299:androgen replacement therapy 12164:Journal of Medical Biography 11871:randomised controlled trials 10661:National Academy of Sciences 10644:with the following contents: 10426:about questions like that. 10237:Isn't this already covered? 9846:Talk:Orthomolecular medicine 5630:(not in JCR) and Elsevier's 5316:Point 1. WP demands that we 5182:New guidance on citing twice 4732:surprised if the editors of 3622:12:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC) 3597:10:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC) 3571:04:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC) 3501:spectrum analysis of quality 3493:00:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC) 3469:21:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC) 3439:20:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC) 3371:08:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC) 3331:07:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC) 3288:07:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC) 3247:23:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC) 3199:22:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC) 3164:19:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC) 3127:14:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC) 3073:22:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC) 3060:22:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC) 3041:16:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC) 3024:16:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC) 3005:15:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC) 2992:12:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC) 2973:05:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC) 2927:05:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC) 2904:02:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC) 2873:21:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC) 2859:20:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC) 2834:21:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC) 2653:21:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC) 2635:20:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC) 2611:19:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC) 2596:04:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC) 2578:04:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC) 2564:04:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC) 2546:03:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC) 2531:03:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC) 2509:00:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC) 2491:00:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC) 2457:21:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC) 2436:21:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC) 2393:20:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC) 2371:19:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC) 2328:20:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC) 2270:18:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC) 2257:12:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC) 2238:02:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC) 1479:18:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC) 1433:02:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC) 1419:01:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC) 1397:22:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC) 1133:16:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC) 1118:20:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC) 1089:02:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC) 1060:16:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC) 1026:16:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC) 1000:00:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC) 927:16:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC) 909:08:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC) 887:02:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC) 871:00:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC) 852:00:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC) 829:21:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC) 779:10.1016/j.schres.2007.05.001 747:05:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC) 708:10:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC) 693:10:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC) 667:03:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC) 632:01:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC) 613:07:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC) 586:06:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC) 568:02:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC) 550:02:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC) 524:01:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC) 400:10.1371/journal.pmed.0050095 7: 15254:: they are often unreviewed 15195:Agree with this approach. 14305:Critically appraise sources 14232:Mattisse, with respect, we 14130:primary sources. Regards, — 13666:23:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC) 13633:05:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC) 13582:00:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC) 13545:10:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC) 13525:00:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC) 13508:23:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC) 13488:22:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC) 13461:16:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC) 13442:14:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC) 13426:17:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC) 13403:19:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC) 13380:18:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC) 13334:16:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC) 13286:19:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC) 13271:19:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC) 13249:18:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC) 13214:17:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC) 13192:16:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC) 13165:16:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC) 13151:14:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC) 13124:22:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC) 13101:03:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC) 13086:23:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC) 12974:02:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC) 12948:12:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC) 12933:02:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC) 12914:16:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC) 12857:04:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC) 12753:21:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC) 12731:21:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC) 12717:21:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC) 12687:21:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC) 12666:21:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC) 12644:20:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC) 12630:20:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC) 12612:17:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC) 12592:07:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC) 12572:23:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC) 12555:20:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC) 12470:12:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC) 12439:05:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC) 12390:04:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC) 12348:03:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC) 12320:23:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 12241:12:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC) 12217:19:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 12199:19:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 12073:19:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 12057:and environmental impact). 11930: 11846: 11617:specific given statement. 10326:Science by press conference 10295:Science by press conference 7230:Knowledge so entertaining. 6252:amply confirmed by reading 5842:21:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC) 4220:Thanks for the pointers; I 574:#Citations as documentation 10: 15991: 15791:22:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC) 15223:OK, I've added that link. 15203:, from my point of view. — 13345:The Man Who Would Be Queen 13229:essentially self-published 12879:stuff, a reference in the 12429:? That sort of argument.) 10475:Expansion: CDC's website? 9916:16:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC) 9859:16:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC) 9835:07:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC) 9766:23:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC) 9739:". As I pointed out in my 9706:22:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC) 9676:22:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC) 9645:21:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC) 9608:10:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC) 9580:03:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC) 9554:23:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC) 9539:21:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC) 9490:21:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC) 9465:20:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC) 9430:20:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC) 9411:20:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC) 9356:21:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC) 9304:05:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC) 9291:17:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 9266:16:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 9249:14:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC) 9234:13:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 9225:13:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 9191:12:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 9176:12:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 9139:11:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC) 9103:18:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC) 9063:22:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC) 8968:03:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC) 8953:02:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC) 8930:00:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC) 8904:00:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC) 8819:00:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC) 8774:00:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC) 8755:23:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC) 8727:23:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC) 8701:03:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC) 8665:23:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC) 8589:21:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC) 8551:20:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC) 8517:18:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC) 8459:17:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC) 8404:21:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC) 8321:19:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC) 8274:18:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC) 8236:18:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC) 8180:18:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC) 8023:15:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC) 7978:11:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC) 7806:04:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC) 7789:04:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC) 7769:03:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC) 7751:03:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC) 7732:03:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC) 7680:02:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC) 7581:01:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC) 7546:00:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC) 7450:21:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC) 7436:20:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC) 7422:20:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC) 7400:18:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC) 7286:17:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC) 7240:17:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC) 6942:22:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC) 6840:19:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC) 6809:15:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC) 6694:06:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC) 6665:02:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC) 5602:04:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC) 5082:10.1177/154405910708600504 3811:Journal of Medical Reviews 3238:Knowledge:Use common sense 1403:actually find and read and 165:Citations as documentation 15356:WP:Centralized discussion 14959:respect secondary sources 12177:21:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC) 12149:20:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC) 12119:13:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC) 12097:20:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC) 12040:18:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC) 12016:16:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC) 11782:00:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC) 11754:00:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC) 11739:23:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC) 11728:22:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC) 11715:Preventing Down syndrome? 11709:21:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC) 11653:20:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC) 11627:20:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC) 11608:18:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC) 11587:01:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC) 11559:23:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC) 11540:22:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC) 11499:22:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC) 11466:17:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC) 11451:05:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC) 11436:04:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC) 11409:21:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC) 11373:20:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC) 11351:19:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC) 11258:08:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC) 11218:07:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC) 11200:05:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC) 11157:04:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC) 11123:04:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC) 11089:19:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC) 10968:20:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC) 10951:20:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC) 10924:21:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC) 10880:18:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC) 10860:21:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC) 10838:17:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC) 10794:16:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC) 10776:16:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC) 10758:04:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC) 10677:World Health Organization 10611:07:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC) 10593:00:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC) 10073:19:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC) 10058:19:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC) 10034:19:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC) 10011:19:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC) 9994:18:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC) 9953:17:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC) 9938:16:45, 2 April 2009 (UTC) 9922:A secondary source dilema 6769:I would paraphrase it as: 5037:"A few journals, such as 4314:WP:MEDRS #Further reading 4226:WP:MEDRS #Further reading 4180:WP:MEDRS #Further reading 3529:not published <--: --> 819:Author Manuscripts in PMC 598:PubMed and PubMed Central 15627:Chronic Fatigue Syndrome 15382:, the mainspace article 15278:Independent eyes, please 13059:fringe theory notability 12964:should take care of it. 12938:broadly with its ideal. 12793:fringe theory notability 12291:sublingual immunotherapy 12127:Medical Hypotheses again 11837:17:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC) 11713:I wasn't impressed with 10987:, are updated regularly. 10568:03:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC) 10545:02:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC) 10520:21:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC) 10498:16:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC) 10453:04:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC) 10436:00:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC) 10417:Question about a journal 10397:05:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC) 10368:23:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC) 10356:21:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC) 10340:21:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC) 10307:19:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC) 10277:19:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC) 10259:18:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC) 10232:Science by press release 10216:21:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC) 10193:21:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC) 10179:22:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC) 10168:21:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC) 10152:21:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC) 10140:21:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC) 10125:05:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC) 10097:23:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC) 9959:One of the reasons that 9370:(This follows up on the 9090:# Popular press accuracy 9053:I think that's amusing. 7426:I was asking Eubulides. 5628:Evidence-based dentistry 5388:Fit for Life#Controversy 5384:in limited circumstances 5039:Evidence-based Dentistry 4973:Evidence-based Dentistry 3851:University of California 2213:But are primary sources 1971:I do not understand why 957:10.1087/095315107X204012 274:10.1136/bmj.315.7109.672 15386:, and their talkpages. 14525:Scope of this guideline 14355:Assess evidence quality 14047:I very much agree with 14023:Use consensus summaries 13602:article; at the other, 13034:Workshopping a proposal 12494:Here is a new proposal: 12305:, and many other areas. 11796:Assess evidence quality 11335:Phase II clinical trial 11326:Assess evidence quality 10665:National Health Service 10653:U.S. National Academies 10640:, insert a new section 10239:WP:MEDRS #Popular press 9799:orthomolecular medicine 9745:orthomolecular medicine 9517:is wrong or misleading. 8223:#Popular press accuracy 6360:In my writings, I have 5904:it at "all too often". 5379:in addition not instead 5318:cite the source we read 4310:material recently added 2746:(inactive 2023-12-13). 2744:10.1093/ajcn/76/5.1158S 1381:Therapeutics Initiative 534:Steps towards consensus 120:evidence-based medicine 15902:10.1038/ncpgasthep1331 15857:10.1038/ncpgasthep1331 15797:Assessing the evidence 15523:aquatic ape hypothesis 15257:self-published sources 15240: 13814: 13795:The referenced article 13362:transsexuality) has a 13299: 13175: 12363:particular attribution 11641:Talk:Fibromyalgia#MUPS 11482: 10812:, not in the proposed 10372:This must be Woloshin 10332:before we link to it? 10019:Secondary sources are 9788: 9364:Popular press accuracy 9327: 9166:Nancy Coover Andreasen 6617:Dentzer actually wrote 6594:I finally got a chance 5691:10.1038/sj.ebd.6400578 5286:not really a 3rd party 5260:"Cherry picking" from 5130:10.1038/sj.ebd.6400506 4880:Template:Sciencereview 4800: 3862:once upon a time; the 15239: 14619:Aspartame controversy 14122:Again, I agree with 13804: 13781:Aspartame controversy 13298: 13174: 12511:Poorly sourced claims 12295:pluripotent stem-cell 11481: 10713:information resources 10657:Institute of Medicine 9787: 9326: 4799: 4206:this personal website 3740:high-quality sources. 3542:authors focus is wide 2513:Scuro, the guideline 1576:as a starting point. 1148:Too long, didn't read 256:Greenhalgh T (1997). 42:of past discussions. 15821:BMJSystematicReviews 15819:The named reference 15772:Medicine or medical? 15384:Scientific consensus 14927:Conference abstracts 13950:Alternative medicine 13039:Controversial claims 12775:Controversial claims 11567:letter to the editor 11525:For the purposes of 11505:Peer-review as MEDRS 11234:This is an issue of 11008:"Learning in autism" 10844:(Change proposed in 10686:Change the title of 8843:source for anything. 5475:#uptodate.com, WebMD 5055:Formatting citations 483:wording and discuss! 381:Schwitzer G (2008). 15368:Knowledge talk:PSTS 15285:Medicinal mushrooms 12881:Skeptdic Newsletter 11993:ImperfectlyInformed 11278:, recentism, etc. 11178:Alzheimer's disease 11110:Alzheimer's disease 11070:recent edit summary 11063:Casting it in stone 10939:a long conversation 9311:Applied kinesiology 9202:monstrous carbuncle 5288:for that fact; see 5232:WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT 5203:WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT 5032:Biomedical journals 4900:uptodate.com, WebMD 1695:for an encyclopedia 1407:WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT 1342:Problematic article 486:Another comment - " 232:Biomedical journals 15543:Knowledge's rules: 15510:Medical Hypotheses 15156:Knowledge's rules: 15097:Knowledge's rules: 14984:Knowledge's rules: 13979:for such matters: 13742:Knowledge's rules: 13643:literature reviews 13535:"take your tomato" 13227:should be seen as 13225:The New York Times 12187:Medical Hypotheses 12185:You can only cite 12055:water fluoridation 11991:Only according to 11899:quasi-experimental 11770:antimalarial drugs 10766:Looks good to me. 10385:took a modest stab 9895:Medical journalism 9889:Medical journalism 9728: 9328: 5885:Health News Review 5780:Water fluoridation 5737:Unknown parameter 5725:Unknown parameter 5713:Unknown parameter 5195:systematic reviews 4644:Journal supplement 4254:hearsay evidence: 2619:this new sentence. 2309:Mark Geier #Ethics 2106:free-for-all Wiki. 2034:Your beef is with 899:open access policy 509:verifiable sources 456:Unknown parameter 444:Unknown parameter 432:Unknown parameter 15544: 15396: 15335: 15249:with this edit: " 15157: 15098: 14985: 14124:ScienceApologistm 13871: 13831: 13743: 13710: 13647:secondary sources 13609:Physical exercise 13506: 13255:Science (journal) 12346: 12115: 12013: 11983: 11982: 11929: 11928: 11821:'term of the art' 11751: 11537: 11244:pancreatic cancer 11182:pancreatic cancer 11120: 11106:clinical articles 11031:978-0-12-370504-4 10985:The Merck Manuals 10891:Tourette syndrome 10804:The Merck Manuals 10703:Internet websites 10486:WP:MEDRS#Websites 10422:I usually pester 9724: 9664:just stop talking 9515:other journalists 9263: 8724: 5271:prestigious venue 4792: 4791: 4744: 4671: 4587: 4224:the first two to 4113:Learned treatises 3985:systematic review 3981:literature review 3844:systematic review 3709:systematic review 3652:George Washington 3594: 3328: 2856: 2046: 1713: 1611:for that; I made 868: 714: 638: 566: 522: 500:original research 160:Accessing sources 95: 94: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 15982: 15975: 15974: 15968: 15960: 15926: 15920: 15919: 15881: 15875: 15874: 15836: 15830: 15829: 15828: 15822: 15814: 15802:MoS naming style 15552: 15536: 15515:civil POV-pusher 15450: 15409:ScienceApologist 15394: 15390: 15333: 15329: 15283:... and also at 15248: 15209: 15165: 15149: 15106: 15090: 14993: 14977: 14596: 14568: 14492: 14486: 14482: 14461: 14209: 14136: 14110:ScienceApologist 14057: 14049:ScienceApologist 14027:ScienceApologist 13861: 13821: 13751: 13735: 13700: 13599:Plant physiology 13517: 13496: 13492:Wow. *facepalm* 13434:ScienceApologist 13395:ScienceApologist 13368:academic freedom 13326:ScienceApologist 13263:ScienceApologist 13259:Nature (journal) 13206:ScienceApologist 13093:ScienceApologist 12966:ScienceApologist 12940:ScienceApologist 12906:ScienceApologist 12745:ScienceApologist 12709:ScienceApologist 12658:ScienceApologist 12622:ScienceApologist 12462:ScienceApologist 12382:ScienceApologist 12340: 12238: 12233: 12113: 12109: 12061: 12011: 11931: 11847: 11749: 11535: 11318:wandering spleen 11188: 11118: 11077: 11055: 11049: 11041: 11039: 11038: 11012: 10960: 10872: 10820:sections. Also, 10786: 10579: 10203:Current Opinions 9982: 9823: 9754: 9690: 9666:at this point. 9340: 9261: 8722: 8707:All too frequent 5746: 5740: 5734: 5728: 5722: 5716: 5711: 5709: 5701: 5674: 5672: 5670: 5665: 5632:Dental Abstracts 5560: 5281:the credibility. 5140: 5113: 5107: 5099: 4961:tertiary sources 4950:Tertiary sources 4771: 4742: 4669: 4585: 3874:to be helpful. 3868:Watson and Crick 3592: 3359: 3326: 3276: 3187: 3052: 3016: 2854: 2820: 2814: 2806: 2804: 2803: 2783: 2768: 2762: 2754: 2738:(5): 1158S–61S. 2723: 2717: 2709: 2627: 2501: 2417:), published in 2385: 2301:Causes of autism 2176: 2170:paleolithic diet 2044: 1711: 1702:choice of review 1659: 1548: 1409:still applies. 1312: 1246:the normal rules 990: 980: 974: 966: 964: 963: 942: 866: 846: 840: 812: 806: 798: 789: 710: 634: 559: 542: 515: 466: 465: 459: 453: 447: 441: 435: 430: 428: 420: 411: 402: 378: 372: 371: 362: 348:J Med Libr Assoc 339: 333: 332: 326: 318: 316: 315: 309: 300: 294: 293: 284: 253: 227: 221: 213: 204: 116:Cochrane Library 73: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 15990: 15989: 15985: 15984: 15983: 15981: 15980: 15979: 15978: 15962: 15961: 15927: 15923: 15882: 15878: 15837: 15833: 15820: 15818: 15816: 15808: 15804: 15799: 15774: 15553: 15550: 15446: 15392: 15347: 15331: 15280: 15261: 15255: 15252: 15244: 15205: 15166: 15163: 15107: 15104: 14994: 14991: 14929: 14671: 14594: 14564: 14527: 14490: 14484: 14478: 14459: 14453: 14320: 14317: 14205: 14132: 14053: 14010: 14005: 13934: 13887: 13784: 13752: 13749: 13676: 13612:article, which 13557: 13515: 13471: 13364:chilling effect 13138: 13036: 12845:tertiary source 12737:asserting facts 12372:asserting facts 12253: 12236: 12231: 12159:gave it a whirl 12129: 12107: 12059: 11988: 11845: 11804:autism spectrum 11798: 11720:Gordonofcartoon 11665: 11595: 11507: 11186: 11075: 11065: 11043: 11042: 11036: 11034: 11032: 11010: 10988: 10978: 10958: 10870: 10784: 10742:edition of the 10729: 10714: 10711: 10707: 10704: 10671:(including the 10663:), the British 10655:(including the 10633: 10477: 10472: 10465: 10419: 10234: 10172:Crazy talk! :P 10081: 9980: 9966:St. John's wort 9924: 9873: 9821: 9752: 9716: 9686: 9366: 9336: 9329: 9320: 9315: 9126: 9121: 8709: 8420:BTW, here's an 7308: 6596: 5825: 5738: 5736: 5726: 5724: 5714: 5712: 5703: 5702: 5679:Evid Based Dent 5668: 5666: 5663: 5610: 5558: 5266: 5184: 5118:Evid Based Dent 5101: 5100: 4902: 4876:original review 4853: 4769: 4764: 4759: 4646: 4575: 4547:primary sources 4403: 3561:Whadya think?-- 3503: 3357: 3274: 3185: 3093: 3048: 3012: 2845:ceteris paribus 2808: 2807: 2801: 2799: 2786:Clin Invest Med 2781: 2756: 2755: 2711: 2710: 2695:Clin Invest Med 2625: 2497: 2381: 2342: 2174: 2168:section of the 1685: 1655: 1607:suggested only 1544: 1495: 1383: 1344: 1308: 1194:bait and switch 1010: 988: 968: 967: 961: 959: 940: 894:answer." Great. 844: 838: 800: 799: 773:(1–3): 253–63. 757: 600: 538: 475: 470: 469: 457: 455: 445: 443: 433: 431: 422: 421: 379: 375: 340: 336: 320: 319: 313: 311: 307: 301: 297: 268:(7109): 672–5. 254: 250: 239: 234: 215: 214: 188:(20): 2339–43. 167: 162: 111: 105: 100: 69: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 15988: 15977: 15976: 15921: 15876: 15831: 15805: 15803: 15800: 15798: 15795: 15794: 15793: 15773: 15770: 15769: 15768: 15767: 15766: 15765: 15764: 15763: 15762: 15761: 15760: 15759: 15758: 15757: 15756: 15755: 15754: 15753: 15752: 15751: 15750: 15732: 15710: 15709: 15708: 15707: 15706: 15705: 15704: 15703: 15702: 15701: 15700: 15699: 15698: 15697: 15696: 15695: 15694: 15693: 15585: 15584: 15583: 15572: 15564:It applies to 15549: 15504: 15500: 15483: 15474: 15473: 15472: 15471: 15440: 15439: 15424: 15423: 15422: 15421: 15420: 15419: 15346: 15343: 15342: 15341: 15340: 15339: 15300: 15299: 15279: 15276: 15275: 15274: 15259: 15253: 15250: 15246:gave it a shot 15238: 15237: 15236: 15235: 15221: 15220: 15219: 15172: 15171: 15162: 15141: 15140: 15139: 15138: 15137: 15136: 15135: 15134: 15133: 15132: 15114: 15113: 15112: 15103: 15051:I'm expecting 15035: 14990: 14928: 14925: 14924: 14923: 14922: 14921: 14920: 14919: 14918: 14917: 14888: 14837: 14836: 14835: 14834: 14833: 14832: 14831: 14830: 14829: 14806: 14805: 14804: 14803: 14802: 14801: 14800: 14799: 14752: 14751: 14750: 14749: 14748: 14747: 14723: 14722: 14721: 14720: 14701: 14700: 14670: 14663: 14662: 14661: 14660: 14659: 14632: 14631: 14609: 14608: 14607: 14606: 14582: 14581: 14554: 14553: 14545: 14544: 14538: 14526: 14523: 14522: 14521: 14520: 14519: 14472: 14471: 14452: 14449: 14448: 14447: 14446: 14445: 14444: 14443: 14442: 14441: 14440: 14439: 14438: 14437: 14436: 14435: 14434: 14433: 14419: 14415: 14378: 14318: 14315: 14296: 14295: 14294: 14293: 14279: 14256: 14255: 14254: 14253: 14230: 14224: 14223: 14222: 14221: 14220: 14219: 14170: 14169: 14168: 14167: 14166: 14165: 14164: 14163: 14162: 14161: 14100: 14099: 14098: 14097: 14072: 14071: 14070: 14069: 14068: 14067: 14040: 14039: 14038: 14037: 14009: 14006: 14004: 13999: 13998: 13997: 13996: 13995: 13969: 13968: 13946: 13933: 13931:Medicinal clay 13928: 13927: 13926: 13925: 13924: 13907: 13906: 13886: 13881: 13880: 13879: 13878: 13877: 13876: 13875: 13813: 13812: 13803: 13802: 13798: 13797: 13791: 13790: 13783: 13778: 13777: 13776: 13775: 13774: 13773: 13772: 13771: 13770: 13769: 13768: 13748: 13675: 13672: 13671: 13670: 13669: 13668: 13650: 13636: 13635: 13585: 13584: 13569: 13566: 13562: 13556: 13553: 13552: 13551: 13550: 13549: 13548: 13547: 13510: 13474:Colin already 13470: 13467: 13466: 13465: 13464: 13463: 13429: 13428: 13412: 13411: 13410: 13409: 13408: 13407: 13406: 13405: 13340: 13297: 13296: 13295: 13294: 13293: 13292: 13291: 13290: 13289: 13288: 13235:standing than 13195: 13194: 13176: 13170: 13169: 13168: 13167: 13137: 13134: 13133: 13132: 13131: 13130: 13129: 13128: 13127: 13126: 13107:New York Times 13042: 13040: 13035: 13032: 13031: 13030: 13029: 13028: 13027: 13026: 13001: 13000: 12999: 12998: 12977: 12976: 12957: 12956: 12955: 12954: 12953: 12952: 12951: 12950: 12837: 12825: 12817: 12816: 12813: 12810: 12806: 12805: 12780: 12778: 12777: 12776: 12770: 12769: 12768: 12767: 12766: 12765: 12764: 12763: 12762: 12761: 12760: 12759: 12758: 12757: 12756: 12755: 12596: 12595: 12594: 12577: 12576: 12575: 12574: 12541: 12540: 12529: 12528: 12516: 12514: 12513: 12512: 12506: 12505: 12504: 12503: 12502: 12501: 12500: 12499: 12498: 12497: 12496: 12495: 12481: 12480: 12479: 12478: 12477: 12476: 12475: 12474: 12473: 12472: 12448: 12447: 12446: 12445: 12444: 12443: 12442: 12441: 12397: 12396: 12395: 12394: 12393: 12392: 12379: 12375: 12353: 12352: 12351: 12350: 12323: 12322: 12308: 12307: 12306: 12287: 12268: 12267: 12263: 12261: 12260: 12259: 12252: 12249: 12248: 12247: 12246: 12245: 12244: 12243: 12222: 12221: 12220: 12219: 12202: 12201: 12182: 12181: 12180: 12179: 12152: 12151: 12135: 12134: 12128: 12125: 12124: 12123: 12122: 12121: 12105:Thanks all. - 12100: 12099: 12080: 12079: 12078: 12077: 12076: 12075: 12045: 12044: 12043: 12042: 12019: 12018: 11987: 11984: 11981: 11980: 11977: 11974: 11970: 11969: 11966: 11965:IIa, IIb, III 11963: 11959: 11958: 11955: 11952: 11948: 11947: 11942: 11937: 11927: 11926: 11923: 11919: 11918: 11907: 11903: 11902: 11895: 11891: 11890: 11887: 11883: 11882: 11879: 11875: 11874: 11865:Evidence from 11863: 11859: 11858: 11853: 11844: 11841: 11840: 11839: 11816: 11815: 11814: 11799: 11797: 11794: 11793: 11792: 11791: 11790: 11789: 11788: 11787: 11786: 11785: 11784: 11696: 11695: 11694: 11684: 11683: 11682: 11664: 11661: 11660: 11659: 11658: 11657: 11656: 11655: 11632: 11631: 11630: 11629: 11611: 11610: 11594: 11591: 11590: 11589: 11574: 11571: 11563: 11562: 11561: 11543: 11542: 11523: 11519: 11506: 11503: 11502: 11501: 11483: 11479: 11475: 11474: 11473: 11472: 11471: 11470: 11469: 11468: 11418: 11417: 11416: 11415: 11414: 11413: 11412: 11411: 11356: 11355: 11354: 11353: 11340: 11339: 11338: 11331: 11321: 11314: 11289: 11280: 11279: 11267: 11266: 11265: 11264: 11263: 11262: 11261: 11260: 11225: 11224: 11223: 11222: 11221: 11220: 11202: 11165: 11164: 11163: 11162: 11161: 11160: 11140: 11137: 11128: 11127: 11126: 11125: 11102: 11098: 11092: 11091: 11064: 11061: 11060: 11059: 11058: 11057: 11030: 10991: 10990: 10982: 10977: 10974: 10973: 10972: 10971: 10970: 10933: 10932: 10931: 10930: 10929: 10928: 10927: 10926: 10864: 10863: 10862: 10797: 10796: 10778: 10763: 10762: 10761: 10760: 10734: 10733: 10732: 10731: 10723: 10712: 10709: 10705: 10702: 10696: 10695: 10683: 10682: 10681: 10680: 10646: 10645: 10632: 10629: 10628: 10627: 10626: 10625: 10624: 10623: 10622: 10621: 10620: 10619: 10618: 10617: 10616: 10615: 10614: 10613: 10581: 10531:You mean like 10501: 10500: 10476: 10473: 10471: 10469:Medicinal clay 10466: 10464: 10459: 10458: 10457: 10456: 10455: 10418: 10415: 10414: 10413: 10412: 10411: 10410: 10409: 10408: 10407: 10406: 10405: 10404: 10403: 10402: 10401: 10400: 10399: 10314: 10313: 10312: 10311: 10310: 10309: 10282: 10281: 10280: 10279: 10262: 10261: 10247: 10246: 10245: 10233: 10230: 10229: 10228: 10227: 10226: 10225: 10224: 10223: 10222: 10221: 10220: 10219: 10218: 10199:Expert Opinion 10156: 10155: 10154: 10113: 10106: 10100: 10099: 10080: 10077: 10076: 10075: 10061: 10060: 10042:RS noticeboard 10037: 10036: 10016: 10015: 10014: 10013: 9997: 9996: 9961:User:Paul gene 9956: 9955: 9941: 9940: 9923: 9920: 9919: 9918: 9905: 9904: 9903: 9884: 9872: 9869: 9868: 9867: 9866: 9865: 9864: 9863: 9862: 9861: 9838: 9837: 9805: 9804: 9803: 9802: 9776:New York Times 9715: 9712: 9711: 9710: 9709: 9708: 9679: 9678: 9656: 9649: 9648: 9647: 9619: 9618: 9617: 9616: 9615: 9614: 9613: 9612: 9611: 9610: 9589: 9588: 9587: 9586: 9585: 9584: 9583: 9582: 9561: 9560: 9559: 9558: 9557: 9556: 9526: 9525: 9521: 9520: 9519: 9518: 9504: 9503: 9499: 9498: 9497: 9496: 9495: 9494: 9493: 9492: 9472: 9471: 9470: 9469: 9468: 9467: 9448: 9447: 9446: 9445: 9444: 9443: 9435: 9434: 9433: 9432: 9414: 9413: 9399: 9398: 9384: 9383: 9379: 9378: 9365: 9362: 9361: 9360: 9359: 9358: 9319: 9316: 9314: 9308: 9307: 9306: 9294: 9293: 9278: 9274: 9269: 9268: 9253: 9252: 9251: 9241:Mihai cartoaje 9236: 9209: 9196: 9195: 9194: 9193: 9162: 9142: 9141: 9125: 9122: 9120: 9117: 9116: 9115: 9114: 9113: 9112: 9111: 9110: 9109: 9108: 9107: 9106: 9105: 9074: 9073: 9072: 9071: 9070: 9069: 9068: 9067: 9066: 9065: 9042: 9041: 9040: 9039: 9038: 9037: 9036: 9035: 9034: 9033: 9020: 9019: 9018: 9017: 9016: 9015: 9014: 9013: 9012: 9011: 8999: 8998: 8997: 8996: 8995: 8994: 8993: 8992: 8991: 8990: 8977: 8976: 8975: 8974: 8973: 8972: 8971: 8970: 8935: 8934: 8933: 8932: 8911: 8910: 8909: 8908: 8907: 8906: 8887: 8886: 8885: 8884: 8883: 8882: 8866: 8865: 8864: 8863: 8862: 8861: 8860: 8859: 8849: 8848: 8847: 8846: 8845: 8844: 8824: 8823: 8822: 8821: 8803: 8802: 8801: 8800: 8790: 8789: 8788: 8787: 8777: 8776: 8760: 8759: 8758: 8757: 8740: 8739: 8738: 8737: 8730: 8729: 8708: 8705: 8704: 8703: 8687: 8686: 8682: 8681: 8680: 8679: 8678: 8677: 8676: 8675: 8674: 8673: 8672: 8671: 8670: 8669: 8668: 8667: 8637: 8636: 8635: 8634: 8633: 8632: 8631: 8630: 8629: 8628: 8627: 8626: 8625: 8624: 8623: 8622: 8604: 8603: 8602: 8601: 8600: 8599: 8598: 8597: 8596: 8595: 8594: 8593: 8592: 8591: 8564: 8563: 8562: 8561: 8560: 8559: 8558: 8557: 8556: 8555: 8554: 8553: 8528: 8527: 8526: 8525: 8524: 8523: 8522: 8521: 8520: 8519: 8506: 8505: 8504: 8497: 8490:New York Times 8468: 8467: 8466: 8465: 8464: 8463: 8462: 8461: 8436: 8435: 8434: 8433: 8432: 8431: 8430: 8429: 8411: 8410: 8409: 8408: 8407: 8406: 8386: 8385: 8384: 8383: 8382: 8381: 8372: 8371: 8370: 8369: 8368: 8367: 8358: 8357: 8356: 8355: 8354: 8353: 8344: 8343: 8342: 8341: 8340: 8339: 8326: 8325: 8324: 8323: 8308: 8304: 8303: 8302: 8295: 8291: 8277: 8276: 8261: 8257: 8256: 8255: 8254: 8253: 8252: 8251: 8250: 8249: 8248: 8247: 8246: 8245: 8244: 8243: 8242: 8241: 8240: 8239: 8238: 8199: 8198: 8197: 8196: 8195: 8194: 8193: 8192: 8191: 8190: 8189: 8188: 8187: 8186: 8185: 8184: 8183: 8182: 8151: 8150: 8149: 8148: 8147: 8146: 8145: 8144: 8143: 8142: 8141: 8140: 8139: 8138: 8137: 8136: 8135: 8134: 8114: 8113: 8112: 8111: 8110: 8109: 8108: 8107: 8106: 8105: 8104: 8103: 8102: 8101: 8100: 8099: 8098: 8097: 8076: 8075: 8074: 8073: 8072: 8071: 8070: 8069: 8068: 8067: 8066: 8065: 8064: 8063: 8062: 8061: 8060: 8059: 8038: 8037: 8036: 8035: 8034: 8033: 8032: 8031: 8030: 8029: 8028: 8027: 8026: 8025: 7997: 7996: 7995: 7994: 7993: 7992: 7991: 7990: 7989: 7988: 7987: 7986: 7985: 7984: 7983: 7982: 7981: 7980: 7948: 7947: 7946: 7945: 7944: 7943: 7942: 7941: 7940: 7939: 7938: 7937: 7936: 7935: 7934: 7933: 7932: 7931: 7928:these criteria 7907: 7906: 7905: 7904: 7903: 7902: 7901: 7900: 7899: 7898: 7897: 7896: 7895: 7894: 7893: 7892: 7891: 7890: 7869: 7868: 7867: 7866: 7865: 7864: 7863: 7862: 7861: 7860: 7859: 7858: 7857: 7856: 7855: 7854: 7853: 7852: 7823: 7822: 7821: 7820: 7819: 7818: 7817: 7816: 7815: 7814: 7813: 7812: 7811: 7810: 7809: 7808: 7794: 7773: 7772: 7771: 7756: 7736: 7735: 7734: 7719: 7718: 7717: 7695: 7694: 7693: 7692: 7691: 7690: 7689: 7688: 7687: 7686: 7685: 7684: 7683: 7682: 7656: 7655: 7654: 7653: 7652: 7651: 7650: 7649: 7648: 7647: 7646: 7645: 7644: 7643: 7642: 7641: 7623: 7622: 7621: 7620: 7619: 7618: 7617: 7616: 7615: 7614: 7613: 7612: 7611: 7610: 7594: 7593: 7592: 7591: 7590: 7589: 7588: 7587: 7586: 7585: 7584: 7583: 7557: 7556: 7555: 7554: 7553: 7552: 7551: 7550: 7549: 7548: 7526: 7525: 7524: 7523: 7522: 7521: 7520: 7519: 7518: 7517: 7516: 7515: 7501: 7500: 7499: 7498: 7497: 7496: 7495: 7494: 7493: 7492: 7480: 7479: 7478: 7477: 7476: 7475: 7474: 7473: 7472: 7471: 7459: 7458: 7457: 7456: 7455: 7454: 7453: 7452: 7403: 7402: 7387: 7386: 7385: 7384: 7378: 7377: 7373: 7372: 7371: 7370: 7364: 7363: 7359: 7358: 7354: 7353: 7352: 7351: 7338: 7337: 7323:not reliable." 7316: 7307: 7304: 7303: 7302: 7301: 7300: 7299: 7298: 7297: 7296: 7295: 7294: 7293: 7292: 7291: 7290: 7289: 7288: 7255: 7254: 7253: 7252: 7251: 7250: 7249: 7248: 7247: 7246: 7245: 7244: 7243: 7242: 7214: 7213: 7212: 7211: 7210: 7209: 7208: 7207: 7206: 7205: 7204: 7203: 7202: 7201: 7181: 7180: 7179: 7178: 7177: 7176: 7175: 7174: 7173: 7172: 7171: 7170: 7169: 7168: 7152: 7151: 7150: 7149: 7148: 7147: 7146: 7145: 7144: 7143: 7142: 7141: 7140: 7139: 7119: 7118: 7117: 7116: 7115: 7114: 7113: 7112: 7111: 7110: 7109: 7108: 7107: 7106: 7090: 7089: 7088: 7087: 7086: 7085: 7084: 7083: 7082: 7081: 7080: 7079: 7078: 7077: 7060: 7059: 7058: 7057: 7056: 7055: 7054: 7053: 7052: 7051: 7050: 7049: 7048: 7047: 7031: 7030: 7029: 7028: 7027: 7026: 7025: 7024: 7023: 7022: 7021: 7020: 7019: 7018: 7002: 7001: 7000: 6999: 6998: 6997: 6996: 6995: 6994: 6993: 6992: 6991: 6953: 6952: 6951: 6950: 6949: 6948: 6947: 6946: 6945: 6944: 6913: 6912: 6911: 6910: 6909: 6908: 6907: 6906: 6905: 6904: 6892: 6891: 6890: 6889: 6888: 6887: 6886: 6885: 6884: 6883: 6871: 6870: 6869: 6868: 6867: 6866: 6865: 6864: 6863: 6862: 6849: 6848: 6847: 6846: 6845: 6844: 6843: 6842: 6827: 6816: 6815: 6814: 6813: 6812: 6811: 6792: 6791: 6790: 6789: 6788: 6787: 6786: 6785: 6775: 6774: 6773: 6772: 6771: 6770: 6762: 6761: 6760: 6759: 6758: 6757: 6756: 6755: 6744: 6743: 6742: 6741: 6740: 6739: 6731: 6730: 6729: 6728: 6727: 6726: 6718: 6717: 6716: 6715: 6714: 6713: 6699: 6698: 6697: 6696: 6668: 6667: 6652: 6651: 6646: 6645: 6641: 6640: 6635: 6634: 6629: 6628: 6627: 6626: 6619: 6618: 6614: 6613: 6612: 6611: 6605: 6604: 6595: 6592: 6591: 6590: 6589: 6588: 6587: 6586: 6585: 6584: 6569: 6566: 6554: 6544: 6543: 6542: 6541: 6540: 6539: 6519: 6518: 6517: 6516: 6515: 6514: 6505: 6504: 6503: 6502: 6501: 6500: 6491: 6490: 6489: 6488: 6487: 6486: 6473: 6472: 6471: 6470: 6469: 6468: 6459: 6458: 6457: 6456: 6455: 6454: 6442: 6441: 6440: 6439: 6438: 6437: 6429: 6428: 6427: 6426: 6425: 6424: 6416: 6415: 6414: 6413: 6395: 6394: 6378: 6377: 6373: 6372: 6367: 6366: 6357: 6356: 6355: 6354: 6353: 6352: 6351: 6350: 6349: 6348: 6347: 6346: 6345: 6344: 6343: 6342: 6329: 6328: 6327: 6317: 6310: 6299: 6279: 6278: 6277: 6276: 6275: 6274: 6273: 6272: 6271: 6270: 6269: 6268: 6267: 6266: 6236: 6235: 6234: 6233: 6232: 6231: 6230: 6229: 6228: 6227: 6226: 6225: 6200: 6199: 6198: 6197: 6196: 6195: 6194: 6193: 6192: 6191: 6190: 6189: 6170: 6169: 6168: 6167: 6166: 6165: 6164: 6163: 6162: 6161: 6160: 6159: 6145: 6144: 6143: 6142: 6141: 6140: 6139: 6138: 6137: 6136: 6135: 6134: 6119: 6118: 6117: 6116: 6115: 6114: 6113: 6112: 6111: 6110: 6109: 6108: 6094: 6093: 6092: 6091: 6090: 6089: 6088: 6087: 6086: 6085: 6084: 6083: 6065: 6064: 6063: 6062: 6061: 6060: 6059: 6058: 6057: 6056: 6055: 6054: 6039: 6038: 6037: 6036: 6035: 6034: 6033: 6032: 6031: 6030: 6008: 6007: 6006: 6005: 6004: 6003: 6002: 6001: 5972: 5971: 5970: 5969: 5968: 5967: 5966: 5965: 5955: 5954: 5953: 5952: 5951: 5950: 5949: 5948: 5938: 5937: 5936: 5935: 5934: 5933: 5932: 5931: 5921: 5920: 5919: 5918: 5917: 5916: 5858: 5824: 5821: 5820: 5819: 5802: 5801: 5800: 5799: 5798: 5797: 5796: 5795: 5794: 5761: 5760: 5759: 5750: 5749: 5748: 5747: 5653: 5652: 5609: 5606: 5605: 5604: 5589: 5588: 5587: 5586: 5585: 5584: 5583: 5582: 5581: 5580: 5579: 5578: 5577: 5576: 5575: 5574: 5554:User:Paul gene 5535: 5534: 5533: 5532: 5531: 5530: 5529: 5528: 5527: 5526: 5525: 5524: 5523: 5522: 5480: 5479: 5478: 5471: 5467: 5447: 5446: 5445: 5444: 5443: 5442: 5441: 5440: 5410: 5382:of the review 5374:more qualified 5357: 5356: 5355: 5343: 5339: 5336: 5332: 5321: 5314: 5309: 5308: 5300: 5293: 5282: 5265: 5258: 5257: 5256: 5255: 5254: 5225: 5224: 5208: 5207: 5199: 5198: 5190: 5189: 5183: 5180: 5179: 5178: 5177: 5176: 5148: 5147: 5146: 5143: 5142: 5141: 5051: 5050: 5049: 5028: 5027: 5026: 5003: 5002: 5001: 5000: 4999: 4998: 4985: 4984: 4983: 4937: 4936: 4935: 4934: 4901: 4898: 4897: 4896: 4895: 4894: 4852: 4849: 4848: 4847: 4846: 4845: 4812: 4801: 4796: 4790: 4789: 4786: 4775: 4768: 4765: 4763: 4760: 4758: 4755: 4754: 4753: 4752: 4751: 4750: 4749: 4724: 4723: 4722: 4721: 4720: 4719: 4718: 4717: 4659: 4658: 4657: 4656: 4653: 4645: 4642: 4641: 4640: 4639: 4638: 4637: 4636: 4617: 4616: 4615: 4614: 4593: 4592: 4574: 4571: 4570: 4569: 4568: 4567: 4566: 4565: 4564: 4563: 4562: 4561: 4539: 4509: 4508: 4507: 4506: 4505: 4504: 4481: 4480: 4479: 4478: 4477: 4476: 4449: 4448: 4447: 4446: 4420: 4419: 4402: 4401:Rating reviews 4399: 4398: 4397: 4396: 4395: 4394: 4393: 4392: 4391: 4390: 4389: 4388: 4387: 4357: 4356: 4355: 4354: 4353: 4352: 4351: 4350: 4301: 4300: 4299: 4298: 4280: 4279: 4265: 4264: 4258: 4251: 4250: 4249: 4248: 4247: 4246: 4245: 4244: 4243: 4242: 4241: 4240: 4136: 4135: 4134: 4133: 4132: 4131: 4130: 4129: 4128: 4127: 4109: 4070: 4069: 4068: 4067: 4049: 4048: 4047: 4046: 4028: 4019: 4018: 4017: 4016: 3998: 3997: 3968: 3967: 3966: 3965: 3964: 3963: 3962: 3961: 3960: 3959: 3928:ICBSeverywhere 3919: 3918: 3917: 3916: 3915: 3914: 3910: 3906: 3902: 3898: 3889: 3888: 3887: 3886: 3871: 3847: 3831: 3815: 3803: 3796: 3795: 3787: 3786: 3779: 3778: 3770: 3769: 3761: 3760: 3744: 3743: 3735: 3734: 3733: 3732: 3731: 3730: 3729: 3728: 3727: 3726: 3725: 3724: 3723: 3722: 3679: 3678: 3677: 3676: 3675: 3674: 3673: 3672: 3671: 3670: 3644: 3631: 3630: 3629: 3628: 3627: 3626: 3625: 3624: 3602: 3601: 3600: 3599: 3584: 3578: 3577: 3576: 3575: 3574: 3573: 3554: 3553: 3552: 3551: 3550: 3549: 3548: 3547: 3543: 3539: 3535: 3531: 3527: 3516: 3515: 3514: 3513: 3512: 3511: 3502: 3499: 3498: 3497: 3496: 3495: 3475: 3474: 3473: 3472: 3428: 3427: 3426: 3409: 3408: 3407: 3406: 3398: 3394: 3390: 3382: 3381: 3380: 3379: 3378: 3377: 3376: 3375: 3374: 3373: 3340: 3339: 3338: 3337: 3336: 3335: 3334: 3333: 3314: 3310: 3299: 3298: 3297: 3296: 3295: 3294: 3293: 3292: 3291: 3290: 3256: 3255: 3254: 3253: 3252: 3251: 3250: 3249: 3206: 3205: 3204: 3203: 3202: 3201: 3171: 3170: 3169: 3168: 3167: 3166: 3153: 3152: 3151: 3147: 3143: 3132: 3131: 3130: 3129: 3105: 3104: 3103: 3102: 3092: 3089: 3088: 3087: 3086: 3085: 3084: 3083: 3082: 3081: 3080: 3079: 3078: 3077: 3076: 3075: 2976: 2975: 2960: 2959: 2958: 2957: 2947: 2946: 2945: 2944: 2937: 2936: 2932: 2931: 2930: 2929: 2911: 2910: 2909: 2908: 2907: 2906: 2886: 2885: 2884: 2883: 2882: 2881: 2839: 2838: 2837: 2836: 2823: 2822: 2821: 2771: 2770: 2769: 2732:Am J Clin Nutr 2682: 2681: 2680: 2679: 2678: 2677: 2676: 2675: 2674: 2673: 2672: 2671: 2670: 2669: 2668: 2667: 2666: 2665: 2664: 2663: 2662: 2661: 2660: 2659: 2658: 2657: 2656: 2655: 2464: 2463: 2462: 2461: 2460: 2459: 2441: 2440: 2439: 2438: 2425: 2424: 2423: 2408: 2396: 2395: 2374: 2373: 2353: 2352: 2349: 2346: 2341: 2338: 2337: 2336: 2335: 2334: 2333: 2332: 2331: 2330: 2317: 2316: 2315: 2312: 2277: 2276: 2275: 2274: 2273: 2272: 2241: 2240: 2221: 2218: 2211: 2207: 2203: 2202: 2198: 2195: 2191: 2190: 2154: 2153: 2136: 2135: 2134: 2133: 2132: 2131: 2121:ICBSeverywhere 2112: 2111: 2110: 2109: 2108: 2107: 2098: 2097: 2096: 2095: 2077: 2076: 2056: 2055: 2054: 2053: 2052: 2051: 2027: 2026: 2025: 2024: 2014:ICBSeverywhere 2007: 2006: 2005: 2004: 1997: 1996: 1995: 1994: 1987: 1986: 1985: 1984: 1966: 1965: 1964: 1963: 1952: 1951: 1950: 1949: 1939: 1938: 1937: 1936: 1935: 1934: 1933: 1932: 1931: 1930: 1920:ICBSeverywhere 1906: 1905: 1904: 1903: 1902: 1901: 1900: 1899: 1898: 1897: 1885: 1884: 1883: 1882: 1881: 1880: 1879: 1878: 1877: 1876: 1863: 1862: 1861: 1860: 1859: 1858: 1857: 1856: 1855: 1854: 1842: 1841: 1840: 1839: 1838: 1837: 1836: 1835: 1834: 1833: 1820: 1819: 1818: 1817: 1816: 1815: 1814: 1813: 1801:doing research 1790: 1789: 1788: 1787: 1786: 1785: 1772: 1771: 1770: 1751: 1740: 1739: 1738: 1737: 1719: 1718: 1698: 1690: 1684: 1681: 1680: 1679: 1678: 1677: 1676: 1675: 1674: 1673: 1672: 1671: 1670: 1669: 1640: 1639: 1638: 1637: 1636: 1635: 1634: 1633: 1632: 1631: 1592: 1591: 1590: 1589: 1588: 1587: 1586: 1585: 1563: 1562: 1561: 1560: 1559: 1558: 1534: 1533: 1532: 1531: 1511: 1510: 1494: 1491: 1490: 1489: 1488: 1487: 1486: 1485: 1484: 1483: 1482: 1481: 1382: 1379: 1378: 1377: 1376: 1375: 1361: 1360: 1343: 1340: 1339: 1338: 1337: 1336: 1335: 1334: 1333: 1332: 1331: 1330: 1329: 1328: 1327: 1326: 1325: 1324: 1323: 1322: 1273: 1242: 1176: 1175: 1174: 1173: 1158: 1151: 1142: 1141: 1140: 1139: 1138: 1137: 1136: 1135: 1120: 1074: 1065: 1064: 1063: 1062: 1036: 1035: 1028: 1009: 1006: 1005: 1004: 1003: 1002: 982: 981: 932: 931: 930: 929: 895: 890: 889: 874: 873: 857: 856: 855: 854: 832: 831: 814: 813: 756: 753: 752: 751: 750: 749: 724: 723: 722: 721: 720: 719: 718: 717: 716: 715: 674: 673: 672: 671: 670: 669: 642: 641: 640: 639: 616: 615: 599: 596: 595: 594: 593: 592: 591: 590: 589: 588: 527: 526: 491: 484: 480: 474: 471: 468: 467: 373: 334: 295: 247: 246: 245: 244: 240: 238: 235: 233: 230: 229: 228: 182:Bioinformatics 172: 171: 166: 163: 161: 158: 157: 156: 149: 148: 141: 140: 132: 131: 128:Google Scholar 124: 123: 110: 107: 106: 104: 101: 99: 96: 93: 92: 87: 84: 79: 74: 67: 62: 52: 51: 34: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 15987: 15972: 15966: 15958: 15955: 15951: 15948: 15944: 15940: 15937:(5): 446–52. 15936: 15932: 15925: 15917: 15914: 15910: 15907: 15903: 15899: 15895: 15891: 15887: 15880: 15872: 15869: 15865: 15862: 15858: 15854: 15850: 15846: 15842: 15835: 15826: 15813: 15811: 15806: 15792: 15788: 15784: 15780: 15776: 15775: 15749: 15745: 15741: 15737: 15733: 15730: 15729: 15728: 15727: 15726: 15725: 15724: 15723: 15722: 15721: 15720: 15719: 15718: 15717: 15716: 15715: 15714: 15713: 15712: 15711: 15692: 15688: 15684: 15679: 15675: 15671: 15667: 15663: 15662: 15661: 15657: 15653: 15648: 15643: 15642: 15641: 15637: 15633: 15628: 15624: 15620: 15615: 15614: 15613: 15609: 15605: 15601: 15600: 15599: 15595: 15591: 15586: 15581: 15577: 15573: 15571: 15567: 15563: 15562: 15559: 15558: 15557: 15554: 15546: 15542: 15539: 15535: 15531: 15528: 15524: 15520: 15516: 15512: 15511: 15505: 15501: 15497: 15496: 15495: 15492: 15489: 15484: 15480: 15479: 15478: 15477: 15476: 15475: 15470: 15466: 15462: 15458: 15454: 15449: 15444: 15443: 15442: 15441: 15438: 15434: 15430: 15426: 15425: 15418: 15414: 15410: 15406: 15403: 15402: 15401: 15400: 15399: 15395: 15389: 15385: 15381: 15377: 15373: 15369: 15365: 15361: 15357: 15353: 15349: 15348: 15338: 15334: 15328: 15325:Doing so now. 15324: 15323: 15322: 15318: 15314: 15310: 15306: 15302: 15301: 15298: 15294: 15290: 15286: 15282: 15281: 15273: 15269: 15265: 15258: 15247: 15242: 15241: 15234: 15230: 15226: 15222: 15218: 15214: 15210: 15208: 15202: 15198: 15194: 15193: 15192: 15188: 15184: 15180: 15176: 15175: 15174: 15173: 15170: 15167: 15159: 15155: 15152: 15148: 15143: 15142: 15131: 15127: 15123: 15119: 15115: 15111: 15108: 15100: 15096: 15093: 15089: 15085: 15084:WP:CONFERENCE 15080: 15079: 15078: 15075: 15072: 15068: 15064: 15061: 15058: 15054: 15050: 15049: 15048: 15044: 15040: 15036: 15034: 15031: 15030: 15025: 15019: 15015: 15014: 15013: 15009: 15005: 15000: 14999: 14998: 14995: 14987: 14983: 14980: 14976: 14972: 14968: 14964: 14960: 14956: 14952: 14947: 14946: 14945: 14942: 14939: 14935: 14931: 14930: 14916: 14912: 14908: 14904: 14903: 14902: 14898: 14894: 14889: 14886: 14885: 14884: 14880: 14876: 14873:noticeboard. 14872: 14868: 14864: 14863: 14862: 14858: 14854: 14850: 14846: 14842: 14838: 14828: 14824: 14820: 14816: 14815: 14814: 14813: 14812: 14811: 14810: 14809: 14808: 14807: 14798: 14794: 14790: 14786: 14782: 14778: 14774: 14770: 14769: 14764: 14760: 14759: 14758: 14757: 14756: 14755: 14754: 14753: 14746: 14742: 14738: 14734: 14729: 14728: 14727: 14726: 14725: 14724: 14719: 14716: 14713: 14709: 14705: 14704: 14703: 14702: 14699: 14695: 14691: 14687: 14683: 14679: 14678: 14673: 14672: 14668: 14658: 14654: 14650: 14646: 14641: 14636: 14635: 14634: 14633: 14630: 14627: 14624: 14620: 14615: 14611: 14610: 14605: 14601: 14597: 14590: 14586: 14585: 14584: 14583: 14580: 14576: 14572: 14567: 14561: 14556: 14555: 14551: 14547: 14546: 14542: 14539: 14536: 14532: 14529: 14528: 14518: 14514: 14510: 14506: 14505: 14500: 14496: 14493:says "please 14489: 14481: 14476: 14475: 14474: 14473: 14470: 14466: 14462: 14455: 14454: 14432: 14428: 14424: 14420: 14416: 14413: 14412: 14411: 14407: 14403: 14399: 14394: 14393: 14392: 14388: 14384: 14379: 14375: 14374: 14373: 14369: 14365: 14361: 14356: 14352: 14351: 14350: 14346: 14342: 14338: 14334: 14333: 14332: 14328: 14324: 14313: 14310: 14306: 14302: 14301: 14300: 14299: 14298: 14297: 14292: 14288: 14284: 14280: 14277: 14273: 14272: 14271: 14267: 14263: 14258: 14257: 14252: 14248: 14244: 14240: 14235: 14231: 14228: 14227: 14226: 14225: 14218: 14214: 14210: 14208: 14202: 14201: 14200: 14196: 14192: 14187: 14186: 14185: 14181: 14177: 14172: 14171: 14160: 14156: 14152: 14147: 14146: 14145: 14141: 14137: 14135: 14129: 14125: 14121: 14120: 14119: 14115: 14111: 14106: 14105: 14104: 14103: 14102: 14101: 14096: 14092: 14088: 14084: 14080: 14076: 14075: 14074: 14073: 14066: 14062: 14058: 14056: 14050: 14046: 14045: 14044: 14043: 14042: 14041: 14036: 14032: 14028: 14024: 14019: 14014: 14013: 14012: 14011: 14003: 13994: 13990: 13986: 13982: 13978: 13973: 13972: 13971: 13970: 13967: 13963: 13959: 13955: 13951: 13947: 13944: 13940: 13936: 13935: 13932: 13923: 13919: 13915: 13911: 13910: 13909: 13908: 13905: 13901: 13897: 13893: 13889: 13888: 13885: 13874: 13869: 13865: 13860: 13859:Fvasconcellos 13856: 13855: 13854: 13850: 13846: 13842: 13841: 13836: 13835: 13834: 13829: 13825: 13820: 13819:Fvasconcellos 13816: 13815: 13810: 13806: 13805: 13800: 13799: 13796: 13793: 13792: 13789: 13786: 13785: 13782: 13767: 13764: 13763: 13758: 13757: 13756: 13753: 13745: 13741: 13738: 13734: 13730: 13726: 13725: 13724: 13721: 13720: 13715: 13714: 13713: 13708: 13704: 13699: 13698:Fvasconcellos 13695: 13694: 13693: 13690: 13689: 13683: 13678: 13677: 13667: 13663: 13659: 13655: 13651: 13648: 13644: 13640: 13639: 13638: 13637: 13634: 13630: 13626: 13622: 13617: 13616: 13611: 13610: 13605: 13601: 13600: 13595: 13590: 13587: 13586: 13583: 13579: 13575: 13570: 13567: 13563: 13559: 13558: 13546: 13543: 13540: 13536: 13532: 13528: 13527: 13526: 13522: 13518: 13511: 13509: 13504: 13500: 13495: 13494:Fvasconcellos 13491: 13490: 13489: 13485: 13481: 13477: 13473: 13472: 13462: 13458: 13454: 13450: 13445: 13444: 13443: 13439: 13435: 13431: 13430: 13427: 13423: 13419: 13414: 13413: 13404: 13400: 13396: 13392: 13387: 13383: 13382: 13381: 13377: 13373: 13369: 13365: 13360: 13356: 13354: 13352: 13350: 13347: 13346: 13341: 13337: 13336: 13335: 13331: 13327: 13323: 13319: 13315: 13311: 13307: 13303: 13302: 13301: 13300: 13287: 13283: 13279: 13274: 13273: 13272: 13268: 13264: 13260: 13256: 13252: 13251: 13250: 13246: 13242: 13238: 13234: 13230: 13226: 13222: 13217: 13216: 13215: 13211: 13207: 13203: 13199: 13198: 13197: 13196: 13193: 13189: 13185: 13181: 13177: 13172: 13171: 13166: 13162: 13158: 13154: 13153: 13152: 13148: 13144: 13140: 13139: 13125: 13121: 13117: 13113: 13108: 13104: 13103: 13102: 13098: 13094: 13089: 13088: 13087: 13083: 13079: 13078: 13072: 13071: 13068: 13064: 13060: 13056: 13051: 13047: 13043: 13041: 13038: 13037: 13025: 13021: 13017: 13013: 13012: 13007: 13006: 13005: 13004: 13003: 13002: 12997: 12993: 12989: 12988:Derek Andrews 12985: 12981: 12980: 12979: 12978: 12975: 12971: 12967: 12963: 12959: 12958: 12949: 12945: 12941: 12936: 12935: 12934: 12930: 12926: 12921: 12917: 12916: 12915: 12911: 12907: 12902: 12898: 12893: 12889: 12886: 12885:Yahoo Answers 12882: 12877: 12873: 12868: 12864: 12860: 12859: 12858: 12854: 12850: 12846: 12842: 12838: 12834: 12830: 12826: 12823: 12819: 12818: 12814: 12811: 12808: 12807: 12802: 12798: 12794: 12789: 12785: 12781: 12779: 12774: 12773: 12772: 12771: 12754: 12750: 12746: 12742: 12738: 12734: 12733: 12732: 12728: 12724: 12720: 12719: 12718: 12714: 12710: 12706: 12702: 12698: 12694: 12690: 12689: 12688: 12684: 12680: 12676: 12672: 12669: 12668: 12667: 12663: 12659: 12655: 12651: 12647: 12646: 12645: 12641: 12637: 12633: 12632: 12631: 12627: 12623: 12619: 12615: 12614: 12613: 12609: 12605: 12601: 12597: 12593: 12589: 12585: 12581: 12580: 12579: 12578: 12573: 12569: 12565: 12561: 12558: 12557: 12556: 12552: 12548: 12543: 12542: 12539: 12536: 12531: 12530: 12525: 12521: 12517: 12515: 12510: 12509: 12508: 12507: 12493: 12492: 12491: 12490: 12489: 12488: 12487: 12486: 12485: 12484: 12483: 12482: 12471: 12467: 12463: 12458: 12457: 12456: 12455: 12454: 12453: 12452: 12451: 12450: 12449: 12440: 12436: 12432: 12428: 12424: 12423: 12418: 12417: 12412: 12411: 12405: 12404: 12403: 12402: 12401: 12400: 12399: 12398: 12391: 12387: 12383: 12380: 12376: 12373: 12368: 12364: 12359: 12358: 12357: 12356: 12355: 12354: 12349: 12344: 12339: 12335: 12331: 12327: 12326: 12325: 12324: 12321: 12317: 12313: 12309: 12304: 12300: 12296: 12292: 12288: 12285: 12281: 12277: 12276: 12274: 12270: 12269: 12264: 12262: 12257: 12256: 12255: 12254: 12242: 12239: 12234: 12228: 12227: 12226: 12225: 12224: 12223: 12218: 12214: 12210: 12206: 12205: 12204: 12203: 12200: 12196: 12192: 12188: 12184: 12183: 12178: 12174: 12170: 12166: 12165: 12160: 12156: 12155: 12154: 12153: 12150: 12146: 12142: 12137: 12136: 12131: 12130: 12120: 12116: 12110: 12104: 12103: 12102: 12101: 12098: 12094: 12090: 12086: 12082: 12081: 12074: 12070: 12066: 12062: 12056: 12051: 12050: 12049: 12048: 12047: 12046: 12041: 12037: 12033: 12028: 12027: 12023: 12022: 12021: 12020: 12017: 12014: 12008: 12004: 12001: 11998: 11994: 11990: 11989: 11978: 11975: 11972: 11971: 11967: 11964: 11961: 11960: 11956: 11953: 11950: 11949: 11946: 11943: 11941: 11938: 11936: 11933: 11932: 11924: 11921: 11920: 11916: 11913:studies, and 11912: 11908: 11905: 11904: 11900: 11896: 11893: 11892: 11888: 11885: 11884: 11880: 11877: 11876: 11872: 11868: 11867:meta-analysis 11864: 11861: 11860: 11857: 11854: 11852: 11849: 11848: 11838: 11834: 11830: 11826: 11822: 11818: 11817: 11812: 11809: 11805: 11801: 11800: 11783: 11779: 11775: 11771: 11767: 11766: 11761: 11757: 11756: 11755: 11752: 11746: 11742: 11741: 11740: 11737: 11736: 11731: 11730: 11729: 11725: 11721: 11716: 11712: 11711: 11710: 11706: 11702: 11697: 11692: 11691: 11689: 11685: 11680: 11676: 11675: 11673: 11672: 11667: 11666: 11654: 11650: 11646: 11642: 11638: 11637: 11636: 11635: 11634: 11633: 11628: 11624: 11620: 11615: 11614: 11613: 11612: 11609: 11605: 11601: 11597: 11596: 11588: 11584: 11580: 11575: 11572: 11568: 11564: 11560: 11556: 11552: 11547: 11546: 11545: 11544: 11541: 11538: 11532: 11528: 11524: 11520: 11517: 11513: 11509: 11508: 11500: 11496: 11492: 11488: 11484: 11480: 11477: 11476: 11467: 11463: 11459: 11454: 11453: 11452: 11448: 11444: 11439: 11438: 11437: 11433: 11429: 11428: 11422: 11421: 11420: 11419: 11410: 11406: 11402: 11398: 11395: 11391: 11387: 11384: 11380: 11376: 11375: 11374: 11370: 11366: 11362: 11361: 11360: 11359: 11358: 11357: 11352: 11348: 11344: 11341: 11336: 11332: 11328: 11327: 11322: 11319: 11315: 11312: 11309: 11305: 11301: 11298: 11294: 11290: 11286: 11285: 11284: 11283: 11282: 11281: 11277: 11273: 11269: 11268: 11259: 11256: 11253: 11249: 11245: 11241: 11237: 11233: 11232: 11231: 11230: 11229: 11228: 11227: 11226: 11219: 11215: 11211: 11207: 11203: 11201: 11197: 11193: 11189: 11183: 11179: 11175: 11171: 11170: 11169: 11168: 11167: 11166: 11158: 11154: 11150: 11146: 11141: 11138: 11134: 11133: 11132: 11131: 11130: 11129: 11124: 11121: 11115: 11111: 11107: 11103: 11099: 11096: 11095: 11094: 11093: 11090: 11086: 11082: 11078: 11071: 11067: 11066: 11053: 11047: 11033: 11028: 11024: 11020: 11016: 11009: 11004: 11003: 11001: 10997: 10993: 10992: 10986: 10980: 10979: 10969: 10965: 10961: 10954: 10953: 10952: 10948: 10944: 10940: 10935: 10934: 10925: 10921: 10917: 10913: 10909: 10908: 10903: 10902: 10897: 10893: 10892: 10887: 10883: 10882: 10881: 10877: 10873: 10865: 10861: 10857: 10853: 10849: 10848: 10843: 10842: 10841: 10840: 10839: 10835: 10831: 10827: 10823: 10819: 10818:Other sources 10815: 10811: 10810: 10805: 10801: 10800: 10799: 10798: 10795: 10791: 10787: 10779: 10777: 10773: 10769: 10765: 10764: 10759: 10755: 10751: 10750: 10745: 10741: 10738: 10737: 10736: 10735: 10727: 10722: 10718: 10700: 10699: 10698: 10697: 10693: 10692:Other sources 10689: 10685: 10684: 10678: 10674: 10670: 10666: 10662: 10658: 10654: 10650: 10649: 10648: 10647: 10643: 10639: 10635: 10634: 10612: 10608: 10604: 10600: 10596: 10595: 10594: 10590: 10586: 10582: 10578: 10573: 10572: 10571: 10570: 10569: 10566: 10565: 10560: 10556: 10552: 10548: 10547: 10546: 10542: 10538: 10534: 10530: 10529: 10527: 10523: 10522: 10521: 10517: 10513: 10509: 10505: 10504: 10503: 10502: 10499: 10495: 10491: 10487: 10483: 10479: 10478: 10470: 10463: 10454: 10450: 10446: 10445: 10439: 10438: 10437: 10433: 10429: 10425: 10421: 10420: 10398: 10394: 10390: 10386: 10382: 10379: 10375: 10371: 10370: 10369: 10366: 10365: 10359: 10358: 10357: 10353: 10349: 10345: 10344: 10343: 10342: 10341: 10338: 10335: 10331: 10327: 10322: 10321: 10320: 10319: 10318: 10317: 10316: 10315: 10308: 10304: 10300: 10296: 10292: 10288: 10287: 10286: 10285: 10284: 10283: 10278: 10274: 10270: 10266: 10265: 10264: 10263: 10260: 10256: 10252: 10248: 10243: 10242: 10240: 10236: 10235: 10217: 10214: 10213: 10208: 10204: 10200: 10196: 10195: 10194: 10190: 10186: 10182: 10181: 10180: 10177: 10176: 10171: 10170: 10169: 10165: 10161: 10157: 10153: 10150: 10149: 10143: 10142: 10141: 10137: 10133: 10128: 10127: 10126: 10122: 10118: 10114: 10111: 10107: 10104: 10103: 10102: 10101: 10098: 10094: 10090: 10086: 10083: 10082: 10079:Review status 10074: 10071: 10068: 10063: 10062: 10059: 10055: 10051: 10047: 10043: 10039: 10038: 10035: 10031: 10027: 10022: 10018: 10017: 10012: 10009: 10006: 10001: 10000: 9999: 9998: 9995: 9991: 9987: 9983: 9977: 9974: 9971: 9967: 9962: 9958: 9957: 9954: 9951: 9948: 9943: 9942: 9939: 9935: 9931: 9926: 9925: 9917: 9913: 9909: 9906: 9902:estimate....) 9901: 9897: 9896: 9891: 9890: 9885: 9882: 9877: 9876: 9875: 9874: 9860: 9856: 9852: 9848: 9847: 9842: 9841: 9840: 9839: 9836: 9832: 9828: 9824: 9818: 9815: 9811: 9810: 9809: 9808: 9807: 9806: 9800: 9796: 9792: 9785: 9781: 9777: 9773: 9769: 9768: 9767: 9763: 9759: 9755: 9749: 9746: 9742: 9738: 9734: 9731: 9727: 9722: 9718: 9717: 9707: 9703: 9699: 9695: 9691: 9689: 9683: 9682: 9681: 9680: 9677: 9673: 9669: 9665: 9661: 9657: 9654: 9650: 9646: 9642: 9638: 9634: 9630: 9627: 9623: 9622: 9621: 9620: 9609: 9606: 9603: 9599: 9598: 9597: 9596: 9595: 9594: 9593: 9592: 9591: 9590: 9581: 9577: 9573: 9569: 9568: 9567: 9566: 9565: 9564: 9563: 9562: 9555: 9552: 9549: 9544: 9543: 9542: 9541: 9540: 9536: 9532: 9528: 9527: 9523: 9522: 9516: 9512: 9508: 9507: 9506: 9505: 9501: 9500: 9491: 9488: 9485: 9480: 9479: 9478: 9477: 9476: 9475: 9474: 9473: 9466: 9462: 9458: 9454: 9453: 9452: 9451: 9450: 9449: 9441: 9440: 9439: 9438: 9437: 9436: 9431: 9427: 9423: 9418: 9417: 9416: 9415: 9412: 9409: 9406: 9401: 9400: 9396: 9392: 9389: 9386: 9385: 9381: 9380: 9377: 9374: 9371: 9368: 9367: 9357: 9353: 9349: 9345: 9341: 9339: 9333: 9332: 9331: 9330: 9325: 9312: 9305: 9302: 9301: 9296: 9295: 9292: 9288: 9284: 9279: 9275: 9271: 9270: 9267: 9264: 9258: 9254: 9250: 9246: 9242: 9237: 9235: 9232: 9228: 9227: 9226: 9223: 9219: 9215: 9210: 9207: 9203: 9198: 9197: 9192: 9188: 9184: 9179: 9178: 9177: 9174: 9171: 9167: 9163: 9160: 9156: 9152: 9148: 9144: 9143: 9140: 9136: 9132: 9128: 9127: 9104: 9100: 9096: 9092: 9091: 9086: 9085: 9084: 9083: 9082: 9081: 9080: 9079: 9078: 9077: 9076: 9075: 9064: 9060: 9056: 9052: 9051: 9050: 9049: 9048: 9047: 9046: 9045: 9044: 9043: 9030: 9029: 9028: 9027: 9026: 9025: 9024: 9023: 9022: 9021: 9009: 9008: 9007: 9006: 9005: 9004: 9003: 9002: 9001: 9000: 8987: 8986: 8985: 8984: 8983: 8982: 8981: 8980: 8979: 8978: 8969: 8965: 8961: 8956: 8955: 8954: 8950: 8946: 8941: 8940: 8939: 8938: 8937: 8936: 8931: 8927: 8923: 8919: 8915: 8914: 8913: 8912: 8905: 8901: 8897: 8893: 8892: 8891: 8890: 8889: 8888: 8880: 8876: 8872: 8871: 8870: 8869: 8868: 8867: 8857: 8856: 8855: 8854: 8853: 8852: 8851: 8850: 8842: 8838: 8834: 8830: 8829: 8828: 8827: 8826: 8825: 8820: 8816: 8812: 8807: 8806: 8805: 8804: 8798: 8794: 8793: 8792: 8791: 8785: 8781: 8780: 8779: 8778: 8775: 8771: 8767: 8764:convince me. 8762: 8761: 8756: 8752: 8748: 8744: 8743: 8742: 8741: 8734: 8733: 8732: 8731: 8728: 8725: 8719: 8715: 8711: 8710: 8702: 8698: 8694: 8689: 8688: 8684: 8683: 8666: 8662: 8658: 8655:significant. 8653: 8652: 8651: 8650: 8649: 8648: 8647: 8646: 8645: 8644: 8643: 8642: 8641: 8640: 8639: 8638: 8620: 8619: 8618: 8617: 8616: 8615: 8614: 8613: 8612: 8611: 8610: 8609: 8608: 8607: 8606: 8605: 8590: 8586: 8582: 8578: 8577: 8576: 8575: 8574: 8573: 8572: 8571: 8570: 8569: 8568: 8567: 8566: 8565: 8552: 8548: 8544: 8540: 8539: 8538: 8537: 8536: 8535: 8534: 8533: 8532: 8531: 8530: 8529: 8518: 8514: 8510: 8507: 8502: 8498: 8495: 8491: 8486: 8485: 8480: 8479: 8478: 8477: 8476: 8475: 8474: 8473: 8472: 8471: 8470: 8469: 8460: 8456: 8452: 8448: 8444: 8443: 8442: 8441: 8440: 8439: 8438: 8437: 8427: 8423: 8419: 8418: 8417: 8416: 8415: 8414: 8413: 8412: 8405: 8401: 8397: 8392: 8391: 8390: 8389: 8388: 8387: 8378: 8377: 8376: 8375: 8374: 8373: 8364: 8363: 8362: 8361: 8360: 8359: 8350: 8349: 8348: 8347: 8346: 8345: 8337: 8332: 8331: 8330: 8329: 8328: 8327: 8322: 8318: 8314: 8309: 8305: 8300: 8296: 8292: 8289: 8288: 8286: 8281: 8280: 8279: 8278: 8275: 8271: 8267: 8262: 8259: 8258: 8237: 8233: 8229: 8225: 8224: 8219: 8218: 8217: 8216: 8215: 8214: 8213: 8212: 8211: 8210: 8209: 8208: 8207: 8206: 8205: 8204: 8203: 8202: 8201: 8200: 8181: 8177: 8173: 8169: 8168: 8167: 8166: 8165: 8164: 8163: 8162: 8161: 8160: 8159: 8158: 8157: 8156: 8155: 8154: 8153: 8152: 8132: 8131: 8130: 8129: 8128: 8127: 8126: 8125: 8124: 8123: 8122: 8121: 8120: 8119: 8118: 8117: 8116: 8115: 8094: 8093: 8092: 8091: 8090: 8089: 8088: 8087: 8086: 8085: 8084: 8083: 8082: 8081: 8080: 8079: 8078: 8077: 8056: 8055: 8054: 8053: 8052: 8051: 8050: 8049: 8048: 8047: 8046: 8045: 8044: 8043: 8042: 8041: 8040: 8039: 8024: 8020: 8016: 8011: 8010: 8009: 8008: 8007: 8006: 8005: 8004: 8003: 8002: 8001: 8000: 7999: 7998: 7979: 7975: 7971: 7966: 7965: 7964: 7963: 7962: 7961: 7960: 7959: 7958: 7957: 7956: 7955: 7954: 7953: 7952: 7951: 7950: 7949: 7929: 7925: 7924: 7923: 7922: 7921: 7920: 7919: 7918: 7917: 7916: 7915: 7914: 7913: 7912: 7911: 7910: 7909: 7908: 7887: 7886: 7885: 7884: 7883: 7882: 7881: 7880: 7879: 7878: 7877: 7876: 7875: 7874: 7873: 7872: 7871: 7870: 7850: 7846: 7841: 7840: 7839: 7838: 7837: 7836: 7835: 7834: 7833: 7832: 7831: 7830: 7829: 7828: 7827: 7826: 7825: 7824: 7807: 7803: 7799: 7795: 7792: 7791: 7790: 7786: 7782: 7778: 7774: 7770: 7766: 7762: 7757: 7754: 7753: 7752: 7748: 7744: 7741: 7737: 7733: 7729: 7725: 7720: 7715: 7714: 7711: 7710: 7709: 7708: 7707: 7706: 7705: 7704: 7703: 7702: 7701: 7700: 7699: 7698: 7697: 7696: 7681: 7677: 7673: 7670: 7669: 7668: 7667: 7666: 7665: 7664: 7663: 7662: 7661: 7660: 7659: 7658: 7657: 7639: 7638: 7637: 7636: 7635: 7634: 7633: 7632: 7631: 7630: 7629: 7628: 7627: 7626: 7625: 7624: 7608: 7607: 7606: 7605: 7604: 7603: 7602: 7601: 7600: 7599: 7598: 7597: 7596: 7595: 7582: 7578: 7574: 7569: 7568: 7567: 7566: 7565: 7564: 7563: 7562: 7561: 7560: 7559: 7558: 7547: 7543: 7539: 7536: 7535: 7534: 7533: 7532: 7531: 7530: 7529: 7528: 7527: 7513: 7512: 7511: 7510: 7509: 7508: 7507: 7506: 7505: 7504: 7503: 7502: 7490: 7489: 7488: 7487: 7486: 7485: 7484: 7483: 7482: 7481: 7469: 7468: 7467: 7466: 7465: 7464: 7463: 7462: 7461: 7460: 7451: 7447: 7443: 7439: 7438: 7437: 7433: 7429: 7425: 7424: 7423: 7419: 7415: 7411: 7410:definition 2b 7407: 7406: 7405: 7404: 7401: 7397: 7393: 7389: 7388: 7382: 7381: 7380: 7379: 7376:Dentzer said: 7375: 7374: 7368: 7367: 7366: 7365: 7361: 7360: 7356: 7355: 7349: 7346: 7342: 7341: 7340: 7339: 7335: 7331: 7328: 7324: 7320: 7317: 7313: 7310: 7309: 7287: 7283: 7279: 7275: 7271: 7270: 7269: 7268: 7267: 7266: 7265: 7264: 7263: 7262: 7261: 7260: 7259: 7258: 7257: 7256: 7241: 7237: 7233: 7228: 7227: 7226: 7225: 7224: 7223: 7222: 7221: 7220: 7219: 7218: 7217: 7216: 7215: 7199: 7195: 7194: 7193: 7192: 7191: 7190: 7189: 7188: 7187: 7186: 7185: 7184: 7183: 7182: 7166: 7165: 7164: 7163: 7162: 7161: 7160: 7159: 7158: 7157: 7156: 7155: 7154: 7153: 7137: 7133: 7132: 7131: 7130: 7129: 7128: 7127: 7126: 7125: 7124: 7123: 7122: 7121: 7120: 7104: 7103: 7102: 7101: 7100: 7099: 7098: 7097: 7096: 7095: 7094: 7093: 7092: 7091: 7074: 7073: 7072: 7071: 7070: 7069: 7068: 7067: 7066: 7065: 7064: 7063: 7062: 7061: 7045: 7044: 7043: 7042: 7041: 7040: 7039: 7038: 7037: 7036: 7035: 7034: 7033: 7032: 7016: 7015: 7014: 7013: 7012: 7011: 7010: 7009: 7008: 7007: 7006: 7005: 7004: 7003: 6988: 6987: 6982: 6978: 6975: 6971: 6970: 6965: 6964: 6963: 6962: 6961: 6960: 6959: 6958: 6957: 6956: 6955: 6954: 6943: 6939: 6935: 6931: 6927: 6923: 6922: 6921: 6920: 6919: 6918: 6917: 6916: 6915: 6914: 6902: 6901: 6900: 6899: 6898: 6897: 6896: 6895: 6894: 6893: 6881: 6880: 6879: 6878: 6877: 6876: 6875: 6874: 6873: 6872: 6859: 6858: 6857: 6856: 6855: 6854: 6853: 6852: 6851: 6850: 6841: 6837: 6833: 6828: 6824: 6823: 6822: 6821: 6820: 6819: 6818: 6817: 6810: 6806: 6802: 6798: 6797: 6796: 6795: 6794: 6793: 6783: 6782: 6781: 6780: 6779: 6778: 6777: 6776: 6768: 6767: 6766: 6765: 6764: 6763: 6752: 6751: 6750: 6749: 6748: 6747: 6746: 6745: 6737: 6736: 6735: 6734: 6733: 6732: 6724: 6723: 6722: 6721: 6720: 6719: 6710: 6705: 6704: 6703: 6702: 6701: 6700: 6695: 6691: 6687: 6683: 6679: 6676: 6672: 6671: 6670: 6669: 6666: 6662: 6658: 6654: 6653: 6648: 6647: 6643: 6642: 6637: 6636: 6631: 6630: 6623: 6622: 6621: 6620: 6616: 6615: 6609: 6608: 6607: 6606: 6602: 6598: 6597: 6583: 6579: 6575: 6570: 6567: 6564: 6559: 6555: 6552: 6551: 6550: 6549: 6548: 6547: 6546: 6545: 6538: 6534: 6530: 6525: 6524: 6523: 6522: 6521: 6520: 6511: 6510: 6509: 6508: 6507: 6506: 6497: 6496: 6495: 6494: 6493: 6492: 6483: 6479: 6478: 6477: 6476: 6475: 6474: 6465: 6464: 6463: 6462: 6461: 6460: 6452: 6448: 6447: 6446: 6445: 6444: 6443: 6435: 6434: 6433: 6432: 6431: 6430: 6422: 6421: 6420: 6419: 6418: 6417: 6412: 6408: 6404: 6399: 6398: 6397: 6396: 6393: 6389: 6385: 6380: 6379: 6375: 6374: 6369: 6368: 6363: 6359: 6358: 6341: 6337: 6333: 6330: 6325: 6322: 6318: 6315: 6311: 6308: 6305: 6300: 6297: 6296: 6295: 6294: 6293: 6292: 6291: 6290: 6289: 6288: 6287: 6286: 6285: 6284: 6283: 6282: 6281: 6280: 6265: 6262: 6259: 6255: 6250: 6249: 6248: 6247: 6246: 6245: 6244: 6243: 6242: 6241: 6240: 6239: 6238: 6237: 6224: 6220: 6216: 6212: 6211: 6210: 6209: 6208: 6207: 6206: 6205: 6204: 6203: 6202: 6201: 6187: 6182: 6181: 6180: 6179: 6178: 6177: 6176: 6175: 6174: 6173: 6172: 6171: 6157: 6156: 6155: 6154: 6153: 6152: 6151: 6150: 6149: 6148: 6147: 6146: 6131: 6130: 6129: 6128: 6127: 6126: 6125: 6124: 6123: 6122: 6121: 6120: 6106: 6105: 6104: 6103: 6102: 6101: 6100: 6099: 6098: 6097: 6096: 6095: 6081: 6077: 6076: 6075: 6074: 6073: 6072: 6071: 6070: 6069: 6068: 6067: 6066: 6051: 6050: 6049: 6048: 6047: 6046: 6045: 6044: 6043: 6042: 6041: 6040: 6029: 6026: 6023: 6018: 6017: 6016: 6015: 6014: 6013: 6012: 6011: 6010: 6009: 6000: 5996: 5992: 5988: 5984: 5980: 5979: 5978: 5977: 5976: 5975: 5974: 5973: 5963: 5962: 5961: 5960: 5959: 5958: 5957: 5956: 5946: 5945: 5944: 5943: 5942: 5941: 5940: 5939: 5929: 5928: 5927: 5926: 5925: 5924: 5923: 5922: 5915: 5911: 5907: 5903: 5899: 5895: 5891: 5887: 5886: 5881: 5880: 5879: 5875: 5871: 5867: 5863: 5859: 5857: 5853: 5849: 5845: 5844: 5843: 5839: 5835: 5831: 5827: 5826: 5818: 5814: 5810: 5809: 5803: 5793: 5789: 5785: 5781: 5777: 5776: 5775: 5774: 5773: 5769: 5765: 5762: 5756: 5752: 5751: 5744: 5732: 5720: 5707: 5699: 5696: 5692: 5688: 5684: 5680: 5662: 5657: 5656: 5655: 5654: 5649: 5648: 5647: 5646: 5645: 5641: 5637: 5633: 5629: 5625: 5624: 5623: 5620: 5617: 5612: 5611: 5603: 5599: 5595: 5591: 5590: 5573: 5569: 5565: 5561: 5555: 5551: 5550: 5549: 5548: 5547: 5546: 5545: 5544: 5543: 5542: 5541: 5540: 5539: 5538: 5537: 5536: 5521: 5517: 5513: 5509: 5508: 5507: 5503: 5499: 5494: 5493: 5492: 5488: 5484: 5481: 5476: 5472: 5468: 5464: 5459: 5458: 5457: 5456: 5455: 5454: 5453: 5452: 5451: 5450: 5449: 5448: 5439: 5436: 5433: 5428: 5424: 5420: 5415: 5411: 5408: 5403: 5402: 5401: 5397: 5393: 5389: 5385: 5381: 5380: 5375: 5371: 5370: 5369: 5368: 5367: 5364: 5361: 5358: 5352: 5347: 5346: 5344: 5340: 5337: 5333: 5330: 5326: 5322: 5319: 5315: 5311: 5310: 5305: 5301: 5298: 5294: 5291: 5287: 5283: 5280: 5276: 5272: 5268: 5267: 5263: 5253: 5249: 5245: 5241: 5237: 5233: 5229: 5228: 5227: 5226: 5223: 5219: 5215: 5210: 5209: 5204: 5201: 5200: 5196: 5192: 5191: 5186: 5185: 5175: 5171: 5167: 5162: 5161: 5160: 5156: 5152: 5149: 5144: 5138: 5135: 5131: 5127: 5123: 5119: 5111: 5105: 5097: 5094: 5090: 5087: 5083: 5079: 5075: 5071: 5067: 5062: 5061: 5059: 5058: 5056: 5052: 5047: 5044: 5040: 5036: 5035: 5033: 5029: 5024: 5020: 5016: 5015: 5013: 5012:Popular press 5009: 5005: 5004: 4997: 4993: 4989: 4986: 4981: 4978: 4974: 4970: 4966: 4962: 4958: 4957: 4955: 4954:Popular press 4951: 4947: 4943: 4942: 4941: 4940: 4939: 4938: 4933: 4929: 4925: 4920: 4919: 4918: 4915: 4912: 4908: 4904: 4903: 4893: 4889: 4885: 4881: 4877: 4873: 4872: 4871: 4867: 4863: 4859: 4858:Hyperhidrosis 4855: 4854: 4844: 4840: 4836: 4831: 4827: 4826: 4825: 4821: 4817: 4813: 4810: 4806: 4802: 4797: 4794: 4793: 4787: 4784: 4780: 4776: 4773: 4772: 4748: 4745: 4739: 4735: 4730: 4729: 4728: 4727: 4726: 4725: 4716: 4713: 4710: 4705: 4704: 4703: 4699: 4695: 4690: 4689: 4688: 4685: 4682: 4677: 4676: 4675: 4672: 4666: 4661: 4660: 4654: 4650: 4649: 4648: 4647: 4635: 4631: 4627: 4623: 4622: 4621: 4620: 4619: 4618: 4613: 4609: 4605: 4601: 4597: 4596: 4595: 4594: 4591: 4588: 4582: 4577: 4576: 4560: 4556: 4552: 4548: 4544: 4540: 4537: 4532: 4531: 4530: 4526: 4522: 4517: 4516: 4515: 4514: 4513: 4512: 4511: 4510: 4503: 4500: 4497: 4492: 4487: 4486: 4485: 4484: 4483: 4482: 4475: 4471: 4467: 4463: 4459: 4455: 4454: 4453: 4452: 4451: 4450: 4445: 4441: 4437: 4433: 4429: 4428:independently 4424: 4423: 4422: 4421: 4418: 4414: 4410: 4405: 4404: 4386: 4382: 4378: 4374: 4369: 4368: 4367: 4366: 4365: 4364: 4363: 4362: 4361: 4360: 4359: 4358: 4349: 4345: 4341: 4337: 4333: 4329: 4328: 4327: 4323: 4319: 4315: 4311: 4307: 4306: 4305: 4304: 4303: 4302: 4297: 4293: 4289: 4284: 4283: 4282: 4281: 4278: 4275: 4272: 4267: 4266: 4263: 4259: 4257: 4253: 4252: 4239: 4235: 4231: 4227: 4223: 4219: 4218: 4217: 4214: 4211: 4207: 4203: 4199: 4195: 4194: 4193: 4189: 4185: 4181: 4177: 4174:Good idea. I 4173: 4172: 4171: 4168: 4165: 4161: 4160: 4159: 4155: 4151: 4147: 4144: 4140: 4139: 4138: 4137: 4126: 4122: 4118: 4114: 4110: 4107: 4103: 4102: 4101: 4100: 4099: 4096: 4093: 4089: 4085: 4081: 4076: 4075: 4074: 4073: 4072: 4071: 4066: 4062: 4058: 4053: 4052: 4051: 4050: 4045: 4041: 4037: 4033: 4029: 4026: 4023: 4022: 4021: 4020: 4015: 4011: 4007: 4002: 4001: 4000: 3999: 3996: 3993: 3990: 3986: 3982: 3978: 3975: 3970: 3969: 3958: 3954: 3950: 3945: 3941: 3940: 3939: 3938: 3937: 3933: 3929: 3925: 3924: 3923: 3922: 3921: 3920: 3911: 3907: 3903: 3899: 3895: 3894: 3893: 3892: 3891: 3890: 3885: 3881: 3877: 3872: 3869: 3865: 3861: 3857: 3856:Linus Pauling 3852: 3848: 3845: 3840: 3836: 3835:Heart disease 3832: 3829: 3825: 3820: 3816: 3812: 3808: 3804: 3800: 3799: 3798: 3797: 3793: 3789: 3788: 3784: 3781: 3780: 3776: 3772: 3771: 3767: 3763: 3762: 3758: 3755: 3751: 3746: 3745: 3741: 3737: 3736: 3721: 3718: 3715: 3710: 3706: 3705: 3704: 3700: 3696: 3691: 3690: 3689: 3688: 3687: 3686: 3685: 3684: 3683: 3682: 3681: 3680: 3669: 3665: 3661: 3657: 3653: 3649: 3645: 3641: 3640: 3639: 3638: 3637: 3636: 3635: 3634: 3633: 3632: 3623: 3619: 3615: 3610: 3609: 3608: 3607: 3606: 3605: 3604: 3603: 3598: 3595: 3589: 3585: 3582: 3581: 3580: 3579: 3572: 3568: 3564: 3560: 3559: 3558: 3557: 3556: 3555: 3544: 3540: 3536: 3532: 3528: 3524: 3523: 3522: 3521: 3520: 3519: 3518: 3517: 3509: 3508: 3507: 3506: 3505: 3504: 3494: 3490: 3486: 3482: 3479: 3478: 3477: 3476: 3470: 3467: 3464: 3460: 3457: 3452: 3447: 3442: 3441: 3440: 3436: 3432: 3429: 3424: 3419: 3418: 3416: 3411: 3410: 3403: 3399: 3395: 3391: 3387: 3386: 3384: 3383: 3372: 3368: 3364: 3360: 3354: 3350: 3349: 3348: 3347: 3346: 3345: 3344: 3343: 3342: 3341: 3332: 3329: 3323: 3319: 3315: 3311: 3307: 3306: 3305: 3304: 3303: 3302: 3301: 3300: 3289: 3285: 3281: 3277: 3271: 3266: 3265: 3264: 3263: 3262: 3261: 3260: 3259: 3258: 3257: 3248: 3245: 3244: 3239: 3235: 3231: 3227: 3223: 3218: 3214: 3213: 3212: 3211: 3210: 3209: 3208: 3207: 3200: 3196: 3192: 3188: 3181: 3177: 3176: 3175: 3174: 3173: 3172: 3165: 3161: 3157: 3154: 3148: 3144: 3140: 3139: 3138: 3137: 3136: 3135: 3134: 3133: 3128: 3124: 3120: 3116: 3115:doesn't cover 3112: 3109: 3108: 3107: 3106: 3100: 3097: 3096: 3095: 3094: 3074: 3071: 3068: 3063: 3062: 3061: 3057: 3053: 3051: 3044: 3043: 3042: 3039: 3036: 3032: 3027: 3026: 3025: 3021: 3017: 3015: 3008: 3007: 3006: 3003: 3000: 2995: 2994: 2993: 2989: 2985: 2980: 2979: 2978: 2977: 2974: 2970: 2966: 2962: 2961: 2955: 2951: 2950: 2949: 2948: 2941: 2940: 2939: 2938: 2934: 2933: 2928: 2924: 2920: 2915: 2914: 2913: 2912: 2905: 2901: 2897: 2892: 2891: 2890: 2889: 2888: 2887: 2879: 2876: 2875: 2874: 2870: 2866: 2862: 2861: 2860: 2857: 2851: 2847: 2846: 2841: 2840: 2835: 2831: 2827: 2824: 2818: 2812: 2798: 2795: 2791: 2787: 2780: 2775: 2774: 2772: 2766: 2760: 2752: 2749: 2745: 2741: 2737: 2733: 2729: 2721: 2715: 2707: 2704: 2700: 2696: 2691: 2690: 2686: 2685: 2684: 2683: 2654: 2650: 2646: 2642: 2638: 2637: 2636: 2632: 2628: 2620: 2616: 2615: 2614: 2613: 2612: 2608: 2604: 2599: 2598: 2597: 2593: 2589: 2585: 2581: 2580: 2579: 2575: 2571: 2567: 2566: 2565: 2561: 2557: 2553: 2549: 2548: 2547: 2543: 2539: 2534: 2533: 2532: 2528: 2524: 2520: 2516: 2512: 2511: 2510: 2506: 2502: 2500: 2494: 2493: 2492: 2488: 2484: 2480: 2476: 2472: 2471: 2470: 2469: 2468: 2467: 2466: 2465: 2458: 2455: 2452: 2447: 2446: 2445: 2444: 2443: 2442: 2437: 2433: 2429: 2426: 2422:uncritically. 2420: 2416: 2413: 2409: 2405: 2402: 2401: 2400: 2399: 2398: 2397: 2394: 2390: 2386: 2384: 2376: 2375: 2372: 2368: 2364: 2360: 2355: 2354: 2350: 2347: 2344: 2343: 2329: 2325: 2321: 2318: 2313: 2310: 2306: 2302: 2298: 2295: 2291: 2287: 2286: 2285: 2284: 2283: 2282: 2281: 2280: 2279: 2278: 2271: 2268: 2265: 2260: 2259: 2258: 2254: 2250: 2245: 2244: 2243: 2242: 2239: 2235: 2231: 2227: 2222: 2219: 2216: 2212: 2208: 2205: 2204: 2199: 2196: 2193: 2192: 2189: 2185: 2181: 2177: 2171: 2167: 2163: 2159: 2158:Phenylalanine 2156: 2155: 2151: 2147: 2143: 2138: 2137: 2130: 2126: 2122: 2118: 2117: 2116: 2115: 2114: 2113: 2104: 2103: 2102: 2101: 2100: 2099: 2094: 2090: 2086: 2081: 2080: 2079: 2078: 2075: 2071: 2067: 2063: 2058: 2057: 2050: 2047: 2041: 2037: 2033: 2032: 2031: 2030: 2029: 2028: 2023: 2019: 2015: 2011: 2010: 2009: 2008: 2001: 2000: 1999: 1998: 1991: 1990: 1989: 1988: 1982: 1978: 1974: 1970: 1969: 1968: 1967: 1960: 1956: 1955: 1954: 1953: 1947: 1943: 1942: 1941: 1940: 1929: 1925: 1921: 1916: 1915: 1914: 1913: 1912: 1911: 1910: 1909: 1908: 1907: 1895: 1894: 1893: 1892: 1891: 1890: 1889: 1888: 1887: 1886: 1873: 1872: 1871: 1870: 1869: 1868: 1867: 1866: 1865: 1864: 1852: 1851: 1850: 1849: 1848: 1847: 1846: 1845: 1844: 1843: 1830: 1829: 1828: 1827: 1826: 1825: 1824: 1823: 1822: 1821: 1812: 1809: 1806: 1802: 1798: 1797: 1796: 1795: 1794: 1793: 1792: 1791: 1784: 1780: 1776: 1773: 1768: 1764: 1760: 1756: 1752: 1748: 1747: 1746: 1745: 1744: 1743: 1742: 1741: 1736: 1732: 1728: 1723: 1722: 1721: 1720: 1717: 1714: 1708: 1703: 1699: 1696: 1691: 1687: 1686: 1668: 1664: 1660: 1658: 1652: 1651: 1650: 1649: 1648: 1647: 1646: 1645: 1644: 1643: 1642: 1641: 1630: 1626: 1622: 1618: 1614: 1610: 1606: 1603:Hmm, thanks, 1602: 1601: 1600: 1599: 1598: 1597: 1596: 1595: 1594: 1593: 1584: 1581: 1580: 1575: 1571: 1570: 1569: 1568: 1567: 1566: 1565: 1564: 1557: 1553: 1549: 1547: 1540: 1539: 1538: 1537: 1536: 1535: 1530: 1526: 1522: 1521: 1515: 1514: 1513: 1512: 1509: 1505: 1501: 1497: 1496: 1480: 1476: 1472: 1471: 1467: 1463: 1462: 1461: 1457: 1453: 1449: 1445: 1441: 1436: 1435: 1434: 1430: 1426: 1422: 1421: 1420: 1416: 1412: 1408: 1404: 1400: 1399: 1398: 1394: 1390: 1385: 1384: 1374: 1371: 1370: 1365: 1364: 1363: 1362: 1359: 1355: 1351: 1346: 1345: 1321: 1317: 1313: 1311: 1304: 1303: 1302: 1298: 1294: 1289: 1288: 1287: 1283: 1279: 1274: 1270: 1269: 1268: 1264: 1260: 1255: 1251: 1247: 1243: 1239: 1238: 1237: 1233: 1229: 1224: 1223: 1222: 1218: 1214: 1209: 1208: 1207: 1203: 1199: 1195: 1191: 1187: 1182: 1181: 1180: 1179: 1178: 1177: 1172: 1168: 1164: 1159: 1156: 1152: 1149: 1146: 1145: 1144: 1143: 1134: 1130: 1126: 1121: 1119: 1115: 1111: 1108: 1105: 1101: 1097: 1095: 1092: 1091: 1090: 1086: 1082: 1081: 1075: 1071: 1070: 1069: 1068: 1067: 1066: 1061: 1057: 1053: 1048: 1044: 1040: 1039: 1038: 1037: 1033: 1029: 1027: 1023: 1019: 1015: 1012: 1011: 1001: 997: 993: 986: 985: 984: 983: 978: 972: 958: 954: 951:(3): 203–15. 950: 946: 939: 934: 933: 928: 924: 920: 916: 912: 911: 910: 907: 904: 900: 896: 892: 891: 888: 884: 880: 876: 875: 872: 869: 863: 859: 858: 853: 850: 843: 836: 835: 834: 833: 830: 827: 824: 820: 816: 815: 810: 804: 796: 793: 788: 784: 780: 776: 772: 768: 767:Schizophr Res 764: 759: 758: 748: 744: 740: 739: 733: 728: 727: 726: 725: 713: 709: 705: 701: 696: 695: 694: 690: 686: 682: 681: 680: 679: 678: 677: 676: 675: 668: 664: 660: 656: 652: 648: 647: 646: 645: 644: 643: 637: 633: 629: 625: 620: 619: 618: 617: 614: 610: 606: 602: 601: 587: 583: 579: 575: 571: 570: 569: 565: 562: 558: 553: 552: 551: 547: 543: 541: 535: 531: 530: 529: 528: 525: 521: 518: 514: 510: 505: 501: 497: 492: 489: 485: 481: 477: 476: 463: 451: 439: 426: 418: 415: 410: 406: 401: 396: 392: 388: 384: 377: 369: 366: 361: 357: 353: 349: 345: 338: 330: 324: 306: 299: 291: 288: 283: 279: 275: 271: 267: 263: 259: 252: 248: 242: 241: 237:Popular press 225: 219: 211: 208: 203: 199: 195: 191: 187: 183: 179: 174: 173: 169: 168: 154: 151: 150: 146: 143: 142: 137: 134: 133: 129: 126: 125: 121: 117: 113: 112: 91: 88: 85: 83: 80: 78: 75: 72: 68: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 15965:cite journal 15934: 15930: 15924: 15896:(2): 82–91. 15893: 15889: 15879: 15851:(2): 82–91. 15848: 15844: 15834: 15817:Cite error: 15783:WhatamIdoing 15778: 15740:WhatamIdoing 15735: 15677: 15673: 15665: 15575: 15569: 15565: 15508: 15429:WhatamIdoing 15313:WhatamIdoing 15206: 15183:WhatamIdoing 15059: 15027: 14963:a news story 14950: 14819:WhatamIdoing 14766: 14675: 14639: 14559: 14549: 14502: 14494: 14451:New template 14423:WhatamIdoing 14397: 14383:WhatamIdoing 14354: 14341:WhatamIdoing 14304: 14283:WhatamIdoing 14243:WhatamIdoing 14233: 14206: 14176:WhatamIdoing 14151:WhatamIdoing 14133: 14127: 14087:WhatamIdoing 14082: 14054: 14051:. Regards, — 14022: 13958:WhatamIdoing 13953: 13896:WhatamIdoing 13838: 13760: 13729:Ben Goldacre 13717: 13686: 13658:WhatamIdoing 13613: 13607: 13597: 13448: 13372:WhatamIdoing 13343: 13278:WhatamIdoing 13241:WhatamIdoing 13236: 13232: 13224: 13220: 13184:WhatamIdoing 13106: 13075: 13009: 12849:WhatamIdoing 12547:WhatamIdoing 12533: 12426: 12420: 12414: 12408: 12229:Thank you!! 12186: 12162: 12089:WhatamIdoing 12024: 11999: 11944: 11939: 11934: 11915:case control 11856:Requirements 11855: 11850: 11829:WhatamIdoing 11763: 11759: 11733: 11669: 11663:DrGreene.com 11645:WhatamIdoing 11619:WhatamIdoing 11579:WhatamIdoing 11515: 11491:WhatamIdoing 11458:WhatamIdoing 11425: 11389: 11378: 11365:WhatamIdoing 11324: 11303: 11292: 11248:WP:MEDWEIGHT 11239: 11149:WhatamIdoing 11105: 11035:. Retrieved 11014: 10943:WhatamIdoing 10911: 10905: 10904:article (if 10899: 10889: 10845: 10825: 10821: 10817: 10813: 10807: 10747: 10744:Merck Manual 10691: 10687: 10641: 10637: 10585:WhatamIdoing 10562: 10558: 10555:Jayson Blair 10550: 10526:common sense 10512:WhatamIdoing 10442: 10428:WhatamIdoing 10373: 10362: 10348:WhatamIdoing 10328:should pass 10299:WhatamIdoing 10290: 10269:WhatamIdoing 10210: 10206: 10202: 10198: 10173: 10146: 10117:WhatamIdoing 10110:case reports 10020: 9899: 9893: 9887: 9880: 9844: 9794: 9790: 9783: 9779: 9775: 9687: 9668:WhatamIdoing 9632: 9628: 9625: 9514: 9510: 9394: 9390: 9387: 9375: 9369: 9337: 9298: 9283:WhatamIdoing 9088: 8989:misleading." 8917: 8874: 8840: 8836: 8783: 8713: 8501:WP:RECENTISM 8493: 8489: 8482: 8446: 8313:WhatamIdoing 8298: 8284: 8221: 8058:distributed: 7798:WhatamIdoing 7739: 7414:WhatamIdoing 7333: 7322: 7318: 7311: 7197: 7135: 6984: 6967: 6929: 6832:WhatamIdoing 6708: 6574:WhatamIdoing 6562: 6557: 6481: 6450: 6403:WhatamIdoing 6361: 6079: 5883: 5865: 5861: 5806: 5754: 5739:|laysummary= 5727:|lay-source= 5706:cite journal 5685:(2): 39–43. 5682: 5678: 5669:February 24, 5667:. Retrieved 5594:WhatamIdoing 5498:WhatamIdoing 5462: 5426: 5418: 5413: 5383: 5378: 5377: 5373: 5350: 5278: 5274: 5261: 5244:WhatamIdoing 5121: 5117: 5104:cite journal 5076:(5): 410–5. 5073: 5069: 5054: 5038: 5031: 5011: 5007: 4972: 4953: 4949: 4945: 4862:WhatamIdoing 4851:Case reports 4816:WhatamIdoing 4808: 4804: 4782: 4778: 4733: 4551:WhatamIdoing 4542: 4490: 4431: 4427: 4409:WhatamIdoing 4372: 4340:WhatamIdoing 4336:castor beans 4261: 4255: 4117:WhatamIdoing 4031: 4024: 3949:WhatamIdoing 3876:WhatamIdoing 3863: 3838: 3823: 3818: 3810: 3806: 3790: 3782: 3773: 3764: 3753: 3747: 3738: 3660:WhatamIdoing 3647: 3480: 3450: 3421:material to 3401: 3352: 3270:undue weight 3241: 3229: 3225: 3216: 3114: 3110: 3098: 3049: 3030: 3013: 2965:WhatamIdoing 2953: 2877: 2843: 2811:cite journal 2800:. Retrieved 2792:(3): 132–9. 2789: 2785: 2759:cite journal 2735: 2731: 2714:cite journal 2701:(3): 132–9. 2698: 2694: 2603:WhatamIdoing 2523:WhatamIdoing 2514: 2498: 2474: 2418: 2382: 2363:WhatamIdoing 2358: 2289: 2230:WhatamIdoing 2225: 2214: 2149: 2145: 2141: 1980: 1976: 1972: 1958: 1945: 1800: 1701: 1694: 1656: 1577: 1545: 1518: 1468: 1439: 1411:WhatamIdoing 1402: 1367: 1309: 1259:WhatamIdoing 1253: 1249: 1213:WhatamIdoing 1189: 1185: 1163:WhatamIdoing 1154: 1078: 971:cite journal 960:. Retrieved 948: 944: 842:cite journal 803:cite journal 770: 766: 736: 711: 635: 539: 495: 487: 458:|laysummary= 446:|lay-source= 425:cite journal 390: 386: 376: 351: 347: 337: 312:. Retrieved 298: 265: 261: 251: 218:cite journal 185: 181: 136:Google Books 70: 43: 37: 15931:Clin J Pain 15676:". What I 15388:LeadSongDog 15327:LeadSongDog 15225:Tim Vickers 15122:Tim Vickers 15039:Tim Vickers 15004:Tim Vickers 14669:noticeboard 14645:falsifiable 14531:Thalidomide 13981:WP:RS/MEDRS 13572:articles.-- 13202:peer review 13055:third-party 12897:Procera AVH 12863:Procera AVH 12741:Atkins diet 12303:vaccination 12280:acupuncture 12232:RetroS1mone 12209:RobinHood70 12191:Tim Vickers 12141:RobinHood70 11945:Description 11911:correlation 11774:Tim Vickers 11686:to this in 11570:interested. 11551:RobinHood70 11512:peer review 11276:WP:NOT#NEWS 10955:oopsie :) 10768:Tim Vickers 10675:), and the 10667:, the U.S. 10201:series, or 10160:Tim Vickers 10050:Tim Vickers 10026:Tim Vickers 9795:responsible 9231:David Ruben 9222:David Ruben 9159:correlation 9087:Please see 8922:Tim Vickers 8835:). I have 8766:Tim Vickers 8426:BMJ article 8015:Tim Vickers 7889:unreliable. 7781:Tim Vickers 7743:Tim Vickers 7738:What about 7321:"generally" 7272:Please see 7136:"generally" 6754:misleading. 6625:misleading. 6485:prejudices. 6254:NHS Choices 5888:; it cites 5277:the review 5124:(3): 72–3. 1018:Kim Bruning 919:Kim Bruning 879:Kim Bruning 849:David Ruben 732:open access 700:Kim Bruning 685:Kim Bruning 624:Kim Bruning 354:(1): 61–6. 36:This is an 15519:bipedalism 15243:Thanks, I 15197:WP:SELFPUB 15179:WP:SELFPUB 14871:WP:MEDRS/N 14785:WP:MEDRS/N 14763:WP:MEDRS/N 14667:WP:MEDRS/N 14358:source in 13674:Pharmanoia 13416:section.-- 13386:Quackwatch 13067:prominence 13063:notability 12801:prominence 12797:notability 12705:prominence 12701:notability 11825:due weight 11765:Plasmodium 11037:2008-07-26 10205:) publish 9900:scientific 9881:everything 9741:my comment 8294:circular). 7777:this story 6633:statement. 5987:WP:PEACOCK 5862:don't work 5828:Thanks, I 5715:|lay-date= 5470:somewhere. 5463:recommends 5407:diet paper 5335:statement. 5325:WP:PRIMARY 5238:, risk of 5070:J Dent Res 4795:Xasodfuih, 3091:Gray areas 2802:2008-12-04 2305:Mark Geier 2062:WP:PRIMARY 1981:should not 1609:WP:LIBRARY 1250:apparently 992:Coppertwig 962:2008-10-24 945:Learn Publ 434:|lay-date= 393:(5): e95. 314:2008-09-16 243:References 90:Archive 10 15825:help page 15652:Eubulides 15604:Eubulides 15461:Eubulides 15393:come howl 15380:WP:Fringe 15332:come howl 15264:Eubulides 14875:Eubulides 14789:Eubulides 14737:Brangifer 14706:Support. 14690:Eubulides 14665:Need for 14649:Brangifer 14571:Eubulides 14558:medicine- 14509:Eubulides 14402:Eubulides 14364:Eubulides 14323:Eubulides 14262:Eubulides 14191:Eubulides 13985:Brangifer 13914:Brangifer 13845:Eubulides 13682:WP:WEIGHT 13625:Eubulides 13574:LittleHow 13480:Eubulides 13391:WP:WEIGHT 13359:physician 13157:Eubulides 13116:Eubulides 13112:installed 13016:Eubulides 12892:WP:PARITY 12822:Protandim 12675:WP:FRINGE 12654:WP:FRINGE 12431:Eubulides 12367:WP:PARITY 12334:WP:FRINGE 12312:Eubulides 12297:therapy, 12284:radionics 12169:Eubulides 12133:disputes. 12032:Eubulides 11701:Eubulides 11600:Eubulides 11487:WP:MEDMOS 11443:Eubulides 11401:Eubulides 11343:Eubulides 11236:WP:WEIGHT 11206:Phase II 11046:cite book 10916:Eubulides 10852:Eubulides 10830:Eubulides 10603:Eubulides 10557:from the 10535:? J/K ;) 10490:Eubulides 10389:Eubulides 10251:Eubulides 10089:Eubulides 9930:Eubulides 9908:Eubulides 9851:Eubulides 9714:Vitamin E 9688:Doc James 9660:scientism 9637:Eubulides 9626:too often 9338:Doc James 9318:Mediation 9206:abscesses 9183:Xasodfuih 9131:Xasodfuih 9119:The worst 9095:Eubulides 8960:Eubulides 8833:straw man 8581:Eubulides 8509:Eubulides 8488:from the 8228:Eubulides 7724:Eubulides 7573:Eubulides 7442:Eubulides 7362:You said, 7278:Eubulides 6981:WP:WEIGHT 6926:Straw man 6686:Eubulides 6682:WP:MEDMOS 6601:WP:MEDMOS 6332:Eubulides 6133:evidence. 5983:WP:WEASEL 5906:Eubulides 5870:Xasodfuih 5848:Xasodfuih 5834:Eubulides 5784:Xasodfuih 5764:Eubulides 5741:ignored ( 5729:ignored ( 5717:ignored ( 5675:Summary: 5636:Xasodfuih 5512:Xasodfuih 5483:Eubulides 5419:unhelpful 5392:Xasodfuih 5262:narrative 5214:Xasodfuih 5166:Xasodfuih 5151:Eubulides 5114:Summary: 5046:1462-0049 4988:Eubulides 4980:1462-0049 4924:Xasodfuih 4884:Xasodfuih 4835:Xasodfuih 4734:Epilepsia 4694:Eubulides 4604:Doc James 4491:generally 4466:Eubulides 4432:need help 4318:Eubulides 4288:Doc James 4230:Eubulides 4184:Eubulides 4150:Doc James 3431:Eubulides 3234:WP:WEIGHT 3222:WP:WEIGHT 3180:Paul gene 3156:Eubulides 2865:Eubulides 2826:Eubulides 2645:Eubulides 2588:Eubulides 2556:Eubulides 2428:Eubulides 2320:Eubulides 2217:superior? 2066:Eubulides 1993:examined. 1983:be cited. 1946:secondary 1775:Eubulides 1750:audience. 1621:Eubulides 1613:this edit 1500:Eubulides 1425:Eubulides 1389:Eubulides 1293:Eubulides 1278:EverSince 1228:EverSince 1198:EverSince 1184:as about 1125:EverSince 1110:EverSince 1100:EverSince 1052:EverSince 659:Eubulides 605:Eubulides 578:Eubulides 460:ignored ( 448:ignored ( 436:ignored ( 82:Archive 5 77:Archive 4 71:Archive 3 65:Archive 2 60:Archive 1 15950:19454881 15909:19153565 15864:19153565 15647:WP:MEDRS 15582:applies. 15530:19890871 15352:WP:SCIRS 15207:Mattisse 15201:symposia 15063:contribs 15029:MastCell 14907:Garrondo 14893:Nutriveg 14867:WP:MEDRS 14853:Nutriveg 14845:WP:MEDRS 14777:WT:PHARM 14686:WT:PHARM 14566:did that 14550:articles 14312:19153565 14207:Mattisse 14134:Mattisse 14055:Mattisse 13809:migraine 13788:The diff 13762:MastCell 13719:MastCell 13688:MastCell 13604:WP:MEDRS 13594:WP:MEDRS 13589:WP:MEDRS 13453:Garrondo 13418:Nutriveg 13143:Nutriveg 13050:marginal 12925:Middle 8 12829:WP:BEANS 12788:marginal 12723:Nutriveg 12679:Nutriveg 12636:Nutriveg 12604:Nutriveg 12584:Middle 8 12564:Middle 8 12524:marginal 12422:Zostavax 12330:WP:MEDRS 12273:WP:MEDRS 12251:Proposal 12108:Tekaphor 12085:this one 12003:contribs 11940:Evidence 11917:studies 11811:19318992 11735:MastCell 11679:secretin 11643:today. 11527:WP:MEDRS 11397:18628464 11386:19442075 11311:19442075 11300:18628464 11250:anyone? 11145:WP:CREEP 10850:below.) 10721:UpToDate 10715:such as 10710:websites 10688:Websites 10659:and the 10564:MastCell 10484:that to 10424:User:DGG 10381:19414840 10364:MastCell 10212:MastCell 10175:MastCell 10148:MastCell 9973:18843608 9772:WP:MEDRS 9698:contribs 9511:seasoned 9348:contribs 9300:MastCell 9147:WP:MEDRS 9032:opinion. 8496:article! 8484:WP:MEDRS 7348:12084701 7330:19118299 6986:WP:MEDRS 6977:19118299 6969:WP:MEDRS 6712:general. 6678:19118299 6639:diverse. 6324:18507496 6314:WP:MEDRS 6307:19118299 5902:reworded 5698:18584000 5236:WP:CREEP 5137:17891121 5096:20230525 5089:17452559 5023:UpToDate 5008:Websites 4969:UpToDate 4573:Bestbets 4462:WP:MEDRS 4458:WP:MEDRS 4055:fixed?-- 3977:18823325 3775:source.) 3243:MastCell 3150:wording? 3142:benefit. 3050:Mattisse 3014:Mattisse 2797:16021987 2751:12420702 2706:16021987 2641:reverted 2499:Mattisse 2415:17517853 2407:clearer? 2404:WP:MEDRS 2383:Mattisse 2359:Everyone 2297:18817931 1962:sources. 1767:WP:MEDRS 1755:WP:MEDRS 1657:Mattisse 1605:WP:MEDRS 1579:MastCell 1546:Mattisse 1369:MastCell 1310:Mattisse 1188:and the 1186:medicine 1123:lead... 1008:Journals 795:17583481 540:Mattisse 417:18507496 387:PLOS Med 368:16404471 323:cite web 210:18723523 15957:3042635 15916:6532496 15871:6532496 15779:related 15666:towards 15570:however 15551:complex 15453:WP:PSTS 15164:complex 15105:complex 14992:complex 14951:extreme 14849:example 14595:Georgia 14560:related 14480:changed 14460:Georgia 14276:WP:PSTS 14239:WP:PSTS 14018:WP:PSTS 13977:WP:RS/N 13912:OK. -- 13750:complex 13621:WP:PSTS 13516:Georgia 13322:WP:NPOV 13221:control 13180:be bold 13048:though 13046:notable 12786:though 12784:notable 12522:though 12520:notable 11954:Ia, Ib 11873:(RCTs) 10959:Georgia 10871:Georgia 10785:Georgia 10601:below. 10551:journal 10021:usually 9723:(which 9572:Nbauman 9531:Nbauman 9457:Nbauman 9422:Nbauman 9214:WP:SPOV 9093:below. 9055:Nbauman 8945:Nbauman 8896:Nbauman 8811:Nbauman 8747:Nbauman 8714:an sich 8693:Nbauman 8657:Nbauman 8543:Nbauman 8451:Nbauman 8422:example 8396:Nbauman 8266:Nbauman 8226:below. 8172:Nbauman 7970:Nbauman 7761:Nbauman 7672:Nbauman 7538:Nbauman 7428:Nbauman 7392:Nbauman 7276:below. 7232:Nbauman 6934:Nbauman 6801:Nbauman 6657:Nbauman 6529:Nbauman 6384:Nbauman 6215:Nbauman 5991:Nbauman 5329:WP:NPOV 5264:reviews 4828:I have 4538:today.) 4332:hemlock 4260:cause: 4106:Hearsay 3814:review. 3748:2. Per 2626:Georgia 2515:already 2475:desires 2162:WP:RS/N 1875:source. 1350:MaxPont 1190:medical 1155:nothing 787:2571079 504:Nupedia 409:2689661 360:1324773 290:9310574 282:2127461 202:2562006 139:itself. 39:archive 15683:TerryE 15632:TerryE 15590:TerryE 15309:WP:RSN 15305:WT:MED 15289:Sasata 14955:recent 14781:WT:MED 14773:WT:MED 14708:WT:MED 14682:WT:MED 14495:do not 14234:should 13954:didn't 13952:topic 13943:WT:MED 13892:WT:MED 13537:mean? 13318:weasel 13314:WP:ASF 13306:WP:ASF 12962:WP:BRD 12887:site: 12562:). -- 12416:Autism 12157:OK, I 11901:study 11762:since 11516:before 11392:2008, 11390:et al. 11381:2009 ( 11379:et al. 11306:2009, 11304:et al. 11295:2008 ( 11293:et al. 10907:Autism 10901:Autism 10690:to be 10636:After 10376:2009 ( 10374:et al. 10241:says: 10185:Peerev 10132:Peerev 10085:PubMed 9218:WP:IAR 8307:along. 7076:wrong. 6861:press. 6650:other. 6563:no one 5896:, and 5758:topic. 5477:above. 5351:recent 5307:thing. 5304:verify 5297:weight 5290:PANDAS 5279:lowers 5240:WP:SYN 5010:after 4088:WP:NOR 3905:field. 3643:other. 3446:policy 3318:WP:IAR 2292:2008 ( 2290:et al. 2215:always 2146:Lancet 1977:prefer 1975:would 1973:anyone 1959:appear 1617:WT:MED 1574:WT:MED 1254:actual 1016::-) -- 153:CINAHL 145:EMBASE 109:Search 15954:S2CID 15913:S2CID 15868:S2CID 15619:HIV-1 15580:WP:RS 15499:mind. 15488:Colin 15448:edits 15071:Colin 15020:: --> 14938:Colin 14712:Colin 14626:Adler 14593:Sandy 14589:WP:FA 14458:Sandy 13539:Colin 13514:Sandy 13476:added 13082:talk 12618:WP:OR 12600:WP:OR 12343:cont. 11935:Grade 11851:Class 11252:Colin 11210:Unomi 11011:(PDF) 10957:Sandy 10912:Books 10869:Sandy 10826:Books 10822:Books 10809:Books 10783:Sandy 10717:WebMD 10638:Books 10559:Times 10537:Unomi 10508:WP:RS 10482:added 10383:). I 10334:Colin 10067:Colin 10005:Colin 9947:Colin 9791:Times 9784:Times 9702:email 9602:Colin 9548:Colin 9484:Colin 9405:Colin 9352:email 9170:Colin 8879:WP:RS 8837:never 8336:WP:RS 6990:(UTC) 6499:more. 6362:never 6258:Colin 6186:WP:RS 6022:Colin 5830:added 5664:(PDF) 5616:Colin 5432:Colin 5423:WP:OR 5360:Colin 5206:says. 5093:S2CID 5019:WebMD 4965:WebMD 4911:Colin 4830:added 4767:Reply 4709:Colin 4681:Colin 4626:scuro 4521:scuro 4496:Colin 4436:scuro 4377:scuro 4271:Colin 4222:added 4210:Colin 4176:added 4164:Colin 4092:Colin 4084:WP:RS 4057:scuro 4036:scuro 4006:scuro 3989:Colin 3828:WP:RS 3714:Colin 3695:scuro 3614:scuro 3563:scuro 3485:scuro 3463:Colin 3456:Colin 3405:IMO). 3397:that. 3226:think 3119:scuro 3067:Colin 3035:Colin 2999:Colin 2984:scuro 2919:scuro 2896:scuro 2782:(PDF) 2624:Sandy 2570:scuro 2538:scuro 2483:scuro 2451:Colin 2299:) in 2264:Colin 2249:scuro 2085:scuro 2060:(see 2036:WP:RS 2003:read. 1805:Colin 1727:scuro 1452:scuro 1041:Also 941:(PDF) 913:Heh. 903:Colin 823:Colin 308:(PDF) 16:< 15971:link 15947:PMID 15906:PMID 15861:PMID 15787:talk 15744:talk 15687:talk 15678:hate 15670:WP:V 15656:talk 15636:talk 15623:AIDS 15608:talk 15594:talk 15576:only 15527:PMID 15465:talk 15433:talk 15413:talk 15370:and 15317:talk 15293:talk 15268:talk 15229:talk 15213:Talk 15187:talk 15126:talk 15057:talk 15043:talk 15024:Here 15016:< 15008:talk 14967:2008 14961:and 14932:See 14911:talk 14897:talk 14879:talk 14857:talk 14823:talk 14793:talk 14741:talk 14694:talk 14653:talk 14623:Hans 14600:Talk 14575:talk 14513:talk 14465:Talk 14427:talk 14406:talk 14387:talk 14368:talk 14360:WP:V 14345:talk 14337:WP:V 14327:talk 14309:PMID 14287:talk 14266:talk 14247:talk 14213:Talk 14195:talk 14180:talk 14155:talk 14140:Talk 14114:talk 14091:talk 14083:this 14061:Talk 14031:talk 13989:talk 13962:talk 13918:talk 13900:talk 13849:talk 13662:talk 13629:talk 13578:talk 13521:Talk 13484:talk 13457:talk 13438:talk 13422:talk 13399:talk 13376:talk 13330:talk 13308:and 13282:talk 13267:talk 13257:and 13245:talk 13233:more 13210:talk 13188:talk 13161:talk 13147:talk 13120:talk 13097:talk 13065:and 13020:talk 12992:talk 12970:talk 12944:talk 12929:talk 12920:WP:N 12910:talk 12853:talk 12841:WP:V 12799:and 12749:talk 12727:talk 12713:talk 12703:and 12693:WP:N 12691:So, 12683:talk 12671:WP:N 12662:talk 12650:WP:N 12640:talk 12626:talk 12608:talk 12588:talk 12568:talk 12551:talk 12466:talk 12435:talk 12386:talk 12336:? - 12332:and 12316:talk 12237:talk 12213:talk 12195:talk 12173:talk 12145:talk 12114:TALK 12093:talk 12036:talk 12012:T@lk 11997:talk 11906:III 11894:IIb 11886:IIa 11833:talk 11808:PMID 11778:talk 11750:T@lk 11724:talk 11705:talk 11649:talk 11623:talk 11604:talk 11583:talk 11555:talk 11536:T@lk 11495:talk 11462:talk 11447:talk 11432:talk 11405:talk 11394:PMID 11383:PMID 11369:talk 11347:talk 11323:The 11308:PMID 11297:PMID 11272:ASCO 11214:talk 11153:talk 11119:T@lk 11052:link 11027:ISBN 11000:OCLC 10996:ISBN 10964:Talk 10947:talk 10920:talk 10884:The 10876:Talk 10856:talk 10834:talk 10790:Talk 10772:talk 10754:talk 10719:and 10607:talk 10589:talk 10541:talk 10516:talk 10494:talk 10449:talk 10432:talk 10393:talk 10378:PMID 10352:talk 10330:WP:V 10303:talk 10273:talk 10255:talk 10207:only 10189:talk 10164:talk 10136:talk 10121:talk 10093:talk 10054:talk 10030:talk 9970:PMID 9934:talk 9912:talk 9855:talk 9780:does 9694:talk 9672:talk 9641:talk 9576:talk 9535:talk 9461:talk 9426:talk 9344:talk 9287:talk 9262:T@lk 9245:talk 9187:talk 9155:This 9151:WP:V 9149:and 9135:talk 9124:NPOV 9099:talk 9059:talk 8964:talk 8949:talk 8926:talk 8900:talk 8841:sole 8815:talk 8770:talk 8751:talk 8736:etc. 8723:T@lk 8697:talk 8661:talk 8585:talk 8547:talk 8513:talk 8455:talk 8447:more 8400:talk 8317:talk 8270:talk 8232:talk 8176:talk 8019:talk 7974:talk 7849:this 7847:and 7845:this 7802:talk 7785:talk 7765:talk 7747:talk 7728:talk 7676:talk 7577:talk 7542:talk 7446:talk 7432:talk 7418:talk 7396:talk 7345:PMID 7334:NEJM 7327:PMID 7282:talk 7236:talk 7198:some 6974:PMID 6938:talk 6930:sole 6836:talk 6805:talk 6690:talk 6675:PMID 6661:talk 6578:talk 6558:have 6533:talk 6482:they 6407:talk 6388:talk 6336:talk 6321:PMID 6304:PMID 6219:talk 5995:talk 5985:and 5910:talk 5874:talk 5852:talk 5838:talk 5813:talk 5788:talk 5768:talk 5743:help 5731:help 5719:help 5695:PMID 5671:2009 5640:talk 5598:talk 5516:talk 5502:talk 5487:talk 5425:for 5396:talk 5275:just 5248:talk 5218:talk 5170:talk 5155:talk 5134:PMID 5110:link 5086:PMID 5043:ISSN 5021:and 4992:talk 4977:ISSN 4967:and 4928:talk 4905:See 4888:talk 4866:talk 4860:.) 4839:talk 4820:talk 4809:read 4805:cite 4743:T@lk 4698:talk 4670:T@lk 4630:talk 4608:talk 4586:T@lk 4555:talk 4525:talk 4470:talk 4440:talk 4413:talk 4381:talk 4344:talk 4322:talk 4308:The 4292:talk 4234:talk 4202:here 4198:page 4188:talk 4154:talk 4121:talk 4080:WP:V 4061:talk 4040:talk 4010:talk 3974:PMID 3953:talk 3944:WP:V 3932:talk 3880:talk 3864:much 3792:work 3750:WP:V 3699:talk 3664:talk 3618:talk 3593:T@lk 3567:talk 3489:talk 3451:many 3435:talk 3327:T@lk 3160:talk 3123:talk 3056:Talk 3020:Talk 2988:talk 2969:talk 2923:talk 2900:talk 2869:talk 2855:T@lk 2830:talk 2817:link 2794:PMID 2765:link 2748:PMID 2720:link 2703:PMID 2649:talk 2631:Talk 2607:talk 2592:talk 2584:done 2582:OK, 2574:talk 2560:talk 2542:talk 2527:talk 2505:Talk 2487:talk 2432:talk 2419:NEJM 2412:PMID 2389:Talk 2367:talk 2324:talk 2294:PMID 2253:talk 2234:talk 2226:also 2166:this 2150:NEJM 2125:talk 2089:talk 2070:talk 2045:T@lk 2018:talk 1924:talk 1779:talk 1731:talk 1712:T@lk 1663:Talk 1625:talk 1552:Talk 1525:talk 1504:talk 1475:talk 1456:talk 1429:talk 1415:talk 1393:talk 1354:talk 1316:Talk 1297:talk 1282:talk 1263:talk 1232:talk 1217:talk 1202:talk 1167:talk 1129:talk 1114:talk 1104:talk 1085:talk 1056:talk 1045:and 1022:talk 996:talk 977:link 923:talk 917:. -- 883:talk 867:T@lk 817:See 809:link 792:PMID 743:talk 735:has. 704:talk 689:talk 663:talk 655:here 653:and 651:here 628:talk 609:talk 582:talk 546:Talk 496:very 462:help 450:help 438:help 414:PMID 365:PMID 329:link 287:PMID 224:link 207:PMID 114:The 15939:doi 15898:doi 15853:doi 15736:not 15574:It 15566:any 15541:(c) 15538:(t) 15534:WLU 15517:on 15451:to 15307:or 15262:." 15154:(c) 15151:(t) 15147:WLU 15095:(c) 15092:(t) 15088:WLU 15053:DGG 14982:(c) 14979:(t) 14975:WLU 14969:? 14851:.-- 14775:or 14684:or 14680:, 14488:fix 14400:"? 14128:old 13740:(c) 13737:(t) 13733:WLU 13370:. 13366:on 13239:. 13237:NYT 13182:. 13077:DGG 12419:to 12338:2/0 12063:| ( 12007:JFW 11976:IV 11922:IV 11878:Ib 11869:of 11862:Ia 11745:JFW 11531:JFW 11489:. 11427:DGG 11240:any 11190:| ( 11114:JFW 11079:| ( 11019:doi 10998:or 10816:or 10749:DGG 10726:CDC 10444:DGG 9984:| ( 9825:| ( 9756:| ( 9629:can 9388:and 9257:JFW 9208::-) 8875:one 8784:Any 8718:JFW 8494:NYT 8352:it. 8287:?" 6709:are 6513:WP. 6451:any 6080:any 5808:DGG 5755:two 5687:doi 5562:| ( 5126:doi 5078:doi 4757:RSN 4738:JFW 4665:JFW 4581:JFW 4334:or 4312:to 4082:or 3860:DNA 3839:not 3837:is 3824:all 3819:not 3807:any 3658:. 3588:JFW 3402:are 3361:| ( 3322:JFW 3278:| ( 3217:why 3189:| ( 3031:any 2850:JFW 2740:doi 2178:| ( 2142:BMJ 2040:JFW 1707:JFW 1520:DGG 1470:DGG 1080:DGG 953:doi 862:JFW 783:PMC 775:doi 738:DGG 564:(c) 561:(t) 557:WLU 520:(c) 517:(t) 513:WLU 405:PMC 395:doi 356:PMC 278:PMC 270:doi 266:315 262:BMJ 198:PMC 190:doi 15967:}} 15963:{{ 15952:. 15945:. 15935:25 15933:. 15911:. 15904:. 15892:. 15888:. 15866:. 15859:. 15847:. 15843:. 15827:). 15809:^ 15789:) 15746:) 15689:) 15658:) 15638:) 15610:) 15596:) 15467:) 15435:) 15415:) 15378:, 15366:, 15362:, 15319:) 15295:) 15270:) 15231:) 15215:) 15189:) 15128:) 15120:. 15045:) 15018:OR 15010:) 14913:) 14899:) 14881:) 14859:) 14825:) 14795:) 14743:) 14696:) 14655:) 14621:. 14602:) 14577:) 14515:) 14491:}} 14485:{{ 14467:) 14429:) 14408:) 14389:) 14370:) 14347:) 14329:) 14289:) 14268:) 14249:) 14215:) 14197:) 14182:) 14157:) 14142:) 14116:) 14093:) 14063:) 14033:) 13991:) 13964:) 13920:) 13902:) 13851:) 13843:. 13664:) 13631:) 13623:. 13580:) 13523:) 13486:) 13459:) 13440:) 13424:) 13401:) 13378:) 13332:) 13284:) 13269:) 13247:) 13212:) 13190:) 13163:) 13149:) 13122:) 13099:) 13084:) 13022:) 13014:. 12994:) 12986:. 12972:) 12946:) 12931:) 12912:) 12855:) 12751:) 12729:) 12715:) 12685:) 12664:) 12642:) 12628:) 12610:) 12602:-- 12590:) 12570:) 12553:) 12468:) 12437:) 12427:is 12388:) 12318:) 12301:, 12293:, 12215:) 12197:) 12175:) 12147:) 12117:) 12095:) 12071:) 12067:- 12060:II 12038:) 12009:| 11973:C 11962:B 11951:A 11835:) 11780:) 11747:| 11726:) 11707:) 11690:: 11674:: 11651:) 11625:) 11606:) 11585:) 11557:) 11549:-- 11533:| 11497:) 11464:) 11449:) 11434:) 11407:) 11371:) 11349:) 11216:) 11198:) 11194:- 11187:II 11159:]] 11155:) 11116:| 11087:) 11083:- 11076:II 11048:}} 11044:{{ 11025:. 10966:) 10949:) 10922:) 10878:) 10858:) 10836:) 10792:) 10774:) 10756:) 10609:) 10591:) 10580:". 10543:) 10518:) 10496:) 10451:) 10434:) 10395:) 10354:) 10305:) 10275:) 10257:) 10191:) 10166:) 10138:) 10123:) 10095:) 10056:) 10032:) 9992:) 9988:- 9981:II 9936:) 9914:) 9857:) 9849:. 9833:) 9829:- 9822:II 9764:) 9760:- 9753:II 9704:) 9700:· 9696:· 9674:) 9643:) 9578:) 9537:) 9463:) 9428:) 9354:) 9350:· 9346:· 9289:) 9259:| 9247:) 9239:-- 9189:) 9153:. 9137:) 9101:) 9061:) 8966:) 8951:) 8928:) 8902:) 8817:) 8772:) 8753:) 8720:| 8699:) 8663:) 8587:) 8549:) 8515:) 8457:) 8402:) 8319:) 8272:) 8234:) 8178:) 8021:) 7976:) 7804:) 7787:) 7779:? 7767:) 7749:) 7730:) 7678:) 7579:) 7544:) 7448:) 7434:) 7420:) 7398:) 7284:) 7238:) 6940:) 6838:) 6807:) 6692:) 6663:) 6580:) 6535:) 6409:) 6390:) 6338:) 6309:). 6256:. 6221:) 5997:) 5989:. 5912:) 5892:, 5876:) 5866:do 5854:) 5840:) 5815:) 5790:) 5770:) 5735:; 5723:; 5710:: 5708:}} 5704:{{ 5693:. 5681:. 5642:) 5600:) 5570:) 5566:- 5559:II 5518:) 5504:) 5489:) 5427:us 5398:) 5250:) 5220:) 5172:) 5157:) 5132:. 5120:. 5106:}} 5102:{{ 5091:. 5084:. 5074:86 5072:. 5068:. 5057:: 4994:) 4930:) 4909:. 4890:) 4868:) 4841:) 4822:) 4788:” 4774:“ 4740:| 4700:) 4667:| 4632:) 4610:) 4583:| 4557:) 4527:) 4472:) 4464:. 4442:) 4415:) 4383:) 4346:) 4324:) 4294:) 4236:) 4228:. 4190:) 4156:) 4148:-- 4123:) 4063:) 4042:) 4034:-- 4012:) 3955:) 3934:) 3882:) 3754:un 3752:, 3701:) 3666:) 3620:) 3590:| 3569:) 3491:) 3437:) 3417:. 3369:) 3365:- 3358:II 3355:. 3324:| 3320:. 3286:) 3282:- 3275:II 3240:. 3197:) 3193:- 3186:II 3162:) 3125:) 3058:) 3022:) 2990:) 2971:) 2963:-- 2925:) 2902:) 2871:) 2852:| 2832:) 2813:}} 2809:{{ 2790:28 2788:. 2784:. 2761:}} 2757:{{ 2736:76 2734:. 2730:. 2716:}} 2712:{{ 2699:28 2697:. 2689:: 2651:) 2633:) 2609:) 2594:) 2586:. 2576:) 2562:) 2554:? 2544:) 2529:) 2507:) 2489:) 2434:) 2391:) 2369:) 2326:) 2255:) 2236:) 2186:) 2182:- 2175:II 2148:, 2144:, 2127:) 2091:) 2072:) 2042:| 2020:) 1926:) 1781:) 1733:) 1709:| 1665:) 1627:) 1619:. 1554:) 1527:) 1506:) 1477:) 1458:) 1450:-- 1431:) 1417:) 1395:) 1356:) 1318:) 1299:) 1284:) 1265:) 1234:) 1219:) 1204:) 1169:) 1131:) 1116:) 1087:) 1058:) 1024:) 998:) 973:}} 969:{{ 949:20 947:. 943:. 925:) 901:. 885:) 864:| 845:}} 839:{{ 805:}} 801:{{ 790:. 781:. 771:94 769:. 765:. 745:) 706:) 698:-- 691:) 665:) 630:) 622:-- 611:) 584:) 548:) 454:; 442:; 429:: 427:}} 423:{{ 412:. 403:. 389:. 385:. 363:. 352:94 350:. 346:. 325:}} 321:{{ 285:. 276:. 264:. 260:. 220:}} 216:{{ 205:. 196:. 186:24 184:. 180:. 86:→ 15973:) 15959:. 15941:: 15918:. 15900:: 15894:6 15873:. 15855:: 15849:6 15785:( 15742:( 15685:( 15654:( 15634:( 15606:( 15592:( 15547:/ 15490:° 15463:( 15431:( 15411:( 15315:( 15291:( 15266:( 15227:( 15211:( 15185:( 15160:/ 15124:( 15101:/ 15073:° 15060:· 15055:( 15041:( 15006:( 14988:/ 14940:° 14909:( 14895:( 14877:( 14855:( 14821:( 14791:( 14739:( 14714:° 14692:( 14651:( 14598:( 14573:( 14537:. 14511:( 14463:( 14425:( 14404:( 14385:( 14366:( 14343:( 14325:( 14285:( 14264:( 14245:( 14211:( 14193:( 14178:( 14153:( 14138:( 14112:( 14089:( 14059:( 14029:( 13987:( 13960:( 13945:. 13916:( 13898:( 13870:) 13868:c 13866:· 13864:t 13862:( 13847:( 13830:) 13828:c 13826:· 13824:t 13822:( 13817:— 13746:/ 13709:) 13707:c 13705:· 13703:t 13701:( 13660:( 13627:( 13576:( 13541:° 13519:( 13505:) 13503:c 13501:· 13499:t 13497:( 13482:( 13455:( 13436:( 13420:( 13397:( 13374:( 13328:( 13280:( 13265:( 13243:( 13208:( 13186:( 13159:( 13145:( 13118:( 13095:( 13080:( 13018:( 12990:( 12968:( 12942:( 12927:( 12908:( 12851:( 12747:( 12725:( 12711:( 12681:( 12660:( 12638:( 12624:( 12606:( 12586:( 12566:( 12549:( 12537:" 12532:" 12464:( 12433:( 12384:( 12345:) 12341:( 12314:( 12211:( 12193:( 12171:( 12143:( 12111:( 12091:( 12069:c 12065:t 12034:( 12000:· 11995:( 11831:( 11813:) 11776:( 11722:( 11703:( 11647:( 11621:( 11602:( 11581:( 11553:( 11493:( 11460:( 11445:( 11430:( 11403:( 11367:( 11345:( 11254:° 11212:( 11196:c 11192:t 11151:( 11085:c 11081:t 11056:" 11054:) 11040:. 11021:: 10981:" 10962:( 10945:( 10918:( 10874:( 10854:( 10832:( 10788:( 10770:( 10752:( 10746:, 10728:, 10701:" 10605:( 10587:( 10539:( 10514:( 10492:( 10447:( 10430:( 10391:( 10350:( 10336:° 10301:( 10271:( 10253:( 10187:( 10162:( 10134:( 10119:( 10091:( 10069:° 10052:( 10028:( 10007:° 9990:c 9986:t 9968:( 9949:° 9932:( 9910:( 9883:. 9853:( 9831:c 9827:t 9762:c 9758:t 9692:( 9670:( 9639:( 9604:° 9574:( 9550:° 9533:( 9486:° 9459:( 9424:( 9407:° 9397:. 9342:( 9285:( 9243:( 9185:( 9172:° 9133:( 9097:( 9057:( 8962:( 8947:( 8924:( 8898:( 8881:. 8813:( 8768:( 8749:( 8695:( 8659:( 8583:( 8545:( 8511:( 8453:( 8398:( 8338:. 8315:( 8301:. 8268:( 8230:( 8174:( 8017:( 7972:( 7800:( 7783:( 7763:( 7745:( 7726:( 7674:( 7575:( 7540:( 7444:( 7430:( 7416:( 7394:( 7280:( 7234:( 6936:( 6834:( 6803:( 6688:( 6659:( 6576:( 6531:( 6405:( 6386:( 6334:( 6302:( 6260:° 6217:( 6024:° 5993:( 5908:( 5872:( 5850:( 5836:( 5811:( 5786:( 5766:( 5745:) 5733:) 5721:) 5700:. 5689:: 5683:9 5673:. 5638:( 5618:° 5596:( 5568:c 5564:t 5514:( 5500:( 5485:( 5434:° 5394:( 5362:° 5246:( 5216:( 5168:( 5153:( 5145:" 5139:. 5128:: 5122:8 5112:) 5098:. 5080:: 5041:( 4990:( 4975:( 4926:( 4913:° 4886:( 4864:( 4837:( 4818:( 4711:° 4696:( 4683:° 4628:( 4606:( 4553:( 4523:( 4498:° 4468:( 4438:( 4411:( 4379:( 4342:( 4320:( 4290:( 4273:° 4232:( 4212:° 4186:( 4166:° 4152:( 4119:( 4094:° 4059:( 4038:( 4008:( 3991:° 3951:( 3930:( 3878:( 3716:° 3697:( 3662:( 3616:( 3565:( 3487:( 3471:) 3465:° 3458:° 3433:( 3367:c 3363:t 3284:c 3280:t 3195:c 3191:t 3158:( 3121:( 3069:° 3054:( 3046:— 3037:° 3018:( 3001:° 2986:( 2967:( 2921:( 2898:( 2867:( 2828:( 2819:) 2805:. 2767:) 2753:. 2742:: 2722:) 2708:. 2647:( 2629:( 2605:( 2590:( 2572:( 2558:( 2540:( 2525:( 2503:( 2485:( 2453:° 2430:( 2387:( 2379:— 2365:( 2322:( 2266:° 2251:( 2232:( 2184:c 2180:t 2123:( 2087:( 2068:( 2016:( 1922:( 1807:° 1777:( 1729:( 1697:. 1661:( 1623:( 1550:( 1523:( 1502:( 1473:( 1454:( 1427:( 1413:( 1391:( 1352:( 1314:( 1295:( 1280:( 1261:( 1230:( 1215:( 1200:( 1165:( 1150:. 1127:( 1112:( 1102:( 1083:( 1054:( 1020:( 994:( 989:☺ 979:) 965:. 955:: 921:( 905:° 881:( 825:° 811:) 797:. 777:: 741:( 702:( 687:( 661:( 626:( 607:( 580:( 544:( 464:) 452:) 440:) 419:. 397:: 391:5 370:. 331:) 317:. 292:. 272:: 226:) 212:. 192:: 50:.

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

Knowledge

talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)/Archive 3 - Knowledge

Index