This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Cewbot(talk | contribs) at 06:53, 14 January 2024(Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 3 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "Start" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 3 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Norway}}, {{WikiProject Psychology}}, {{WikiProject Alternative medicine}}.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.
Revision as of 06:53, 14 January 2024 by Cewbot(talk | contribs)(Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 3 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "Start" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 3 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Norway}}, {{WikiProject Psychology}}, {{WikiProject Alternative medicine}}.)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norway, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Norway on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NorwayWikipedia:WikiProject NorwayTemplate:WikiProject NorwayNorway articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine articles
Wikipedia has continued to raise the standard for sourcing of medical-related articles, with the guideline specifying that individual studies are considered to be primary sources, and that research reviews, which are secondary sources, are preferred. Or even required. Ideally this article would cite research reviews. TimidGuy (talk) 15:21, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This article reads a lot like a ad for ACEM rather than a objective article on it! The research bit seems very biased in favour of ACEM, repeating single positive studies. 51.174.232.16 (talk) 10:00, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
