Talk:Bipolar disorder in children
A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bipolar disorder in children article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Bipolar disorder in children.
|This article is/was the subject of an educational assignment in 2014 Q3. Further details are available on the course page.|
This page was quite deteriorated, with boatloads of off-topic content (that belongs in other articles), and a good deal of it based on primary sources. Will editors working here please become familiar with WP:MSH, WP:MEDMOS, WP:MEDRS, MOS:LINK, and work to understand that Wikipedia uses links to avoid duplicating information across articles; assessment tools can be described in detail in their own articles. This article should discuss childhood bipolar, which it is not currently doing, and most of the sourcing here is very dated. Writing is unencyclopedic. Secondary reviews can be found by searching PubMed; see the links at the top of this page for recent, freely available secondary reviews. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing out those resources! I am in the process of reading on those guidelines. In the meantime, I will work on reworking the language used in the article, and citing meta-analyses and systematic reviews instead of primary articles. Ongmianli (talk) 02:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-30/Dispatches might help you understand sourcing of medical content, and a read of WP:OR might also be helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
PMID 19252450 is a primary study; please review WP:MEDRS and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-30/Dispatches. I have removed this addition; not only is it not a secondary review, but it is more than five years old, meaning if relevant, the numbers will have been mentioned in a secondary review by now. Please also review WP:CITEVAR and observe the citation style used in the article (use PMIDs please, and see author format). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:50, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
- And it was reinstated, so I've flagged the primary source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:04, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
- Additionally, these edits contradict a 2014 review, which is a freely available and recent secondary review that complies with WP:MEDRS:
- SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, User:SandyGeorgia. I am reading through the Dispatch that you suggested; it is very helpful as I try to understand the nuances of ranking sources. Many of the criteria and heuristics are different than I am used to, and it seems that WP:MEDRS is different than what I'd read in general materials about editing on Wikipedia. The Dispatch looks more like what I am familiar with, so that is reassuring, I guess. With regard to this particular edit, I was trying to cite one of the studies with higher prevalence rates to indicate the range, rather than just having the article report the mean without a sense of the variability. The NCS-A (PMID 19252450) is considered "high quality" because it was funded by the NIMH, was conducted by an experienced group, used a nationally representative sample, and was published in a high impact journal. Its citation impact (mentioned in the dispatch) also backs up the substantial weight it carries in the research community.
The secondary source that you referred to is in a much lower tier journal, has not accumulated anywhere near the same citation impact, and leans heavily on two prior reviews (fortunately representing the consensus in the field reasonably well). What I am realizing, though, is that it being freely accessible is a big consideration (cue all the lively debated about pros and cons of open access publishing). I am going to really digest the Dispatch, and then I would like to write back with a set of questions about how to understand current thinking in the Wikipedia community about the types of evidence, and how to mesh them with social science conventions and evidence based medicine conventions. I really want to figure out how to work together effectively, and how to teach other academics to engage more effectively with Wikipedia. I am grateful for your patience and willingness to help. This is quite a different community than I am used to, and I am realizing that I have violated etiquette several times without realizing it. My clumsiness with the coding is not going to win style points for a while, either. So, here's another helping of gratitude, in advance, for your patience. :-)
It will take me several days to get back to this; I am teaching and have a wave of deadlines this week. Any quiet on my end is just being busy, or thinking. Much appreciation! Prof. Eric A. Youngstrom 03:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyoungstrom (talk • contribs)
- Hi again, Eyoungstrom! I don't at all mind cleaning up formatting, coding, manual of style or any other technical issue for an editor who uses the talk page, responds to queries, and is willing to learn Wikipedia style, guidelines and policies! (On the other hand, it's less enjoyable to clean up after students who never engage talk, don't care about learning the ropes, and are gone as soon as I've invested hours of time into trying to teach them to use the website :) Generally, though, if you are struggling to understand Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines for medical content, you can get faster and more varied/detailed response at the talk page of the guideline (in this case, Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). Once you've worked through the Dispatch, and if you still have questions, then you might post a query there to get feedback beyond mine-- this isn't a very well watched article, so I may be the only medical editor watchlisting here. Your arguments about why you want to use that particular primary source to show the range aren't in line with MEDRS, and I can explain why, but for now, will give you more time to catch up (well, actually, I'm begging off for now because I have a very busy morning :) I know it can be hard for an expert in the field to avoid using primary sources, but I can see why secondary reviews have chosen not to report the higher range, considering the controversy about overdiagnosis. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:45, 23 February 2015 (UTC)