Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Identifying reliable sources (medicine) page. |
|||
| |||
| Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 | |||
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 Identifying reliable sources (medicine).
|
| To discuss reliability of specific sources, please go to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard or to the talk pages of WikiProject Medicine or WikiProject Pharmacology. |
| Frequently asked questions (FAQ) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
These are some Frequently Asked Questions about Wikipedia's guidelines on sourcing for medical content, manual of style for medicine-related articles, and how the guidelines and policies apply to biomedical content.
Primary sources aren't completely banned, but they should only be used in rare situations. Whenever possible, you should cite a secondary source such as:
Primary sources might be useful in these common situations:
There are three possible situations:
In the first case, we cannot say that it does not work, but we can say that there is no evidence to determine whether it works. In the second, we can say that there is no evidence that it works. In the last, we should say that there is evidence that it has an effect. After multiple, high-quality independent studies have been published, it is reasonable to understand "no evidence that it works" as "some evidence that it does not work". You should follow the lead of review articles and other secondary sources for determining when this threshold has been crossed. Reports may conflict with each other. For example, a clinical trial may produce no evidence of an effect, but the treatment's manufacturer might produce testimonials claiming a positive effect. You should follow the lead of review articles and other secondary sources for determining how to balance these claims. Most scholarly journals are behind paywalls. Some options to access these articles include visiting a local university library, visiting The Wikipedia Library, and WikiProject Resource Requests. Note that paywalled articles are frequently pirated and made available on the open web. When linking to a journal article, care must be taken not to link to such a pirate copy, as such a link would be a copyright violating link in contravention of Wikipedia's policy. In general if you find such a copy and it is not accompanied by text explicitly stating that it is made available with the permission of the copyright holder, assume that it is potentially infringing, and do not link to it. This holds for all edits in Wikipedia, not just in article space. Almost all medical articles are indexed by the PubMed search engine and have a Digital object identifier (DOI) assigned to them. All articles included in PubMed are assigned an eight-digit PubMed identifier (PMID). These identifiers can be used to refer to articles, which is preferred to URLs as it makes a reliable link which is resilient to changes beyond our control – i.e. the publisher being acquired by another publisher and it's "normal" web URLs changing as a consequence. Once you have the PMID, there are a number of tools such as this one which you can use to generate a full citation automatically. In article references, the "doi" and "pmid" parameters are preferred to the "url" parameter for such reasons. On Talk pages, when referring to journal articles, is it good practice to make any link using these types of identifier also:
References
| |||
| This page is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Contents
What is medical content ?[edit]
I would like the meaning of medical content, (bio)medical information, non-(bio)medical information to be clarified in WP:MEDRS. I would like the article to begin with a definition of these 3 terms, and possibly the article WP:MEDRS to be reviewed according to the definition of each term.
2 different kinds of information can be confused:
- a non medical information on a medical subject (e.g. "Germany allows the medical use of cannabis", "cannabis use for MS is approved in ten countries")
- a medical information on a medical subject (e.g. "cannabis is not proven to be effective in relieving chronic pain", "when cannabis is inhaled, blood levels of cannabinoids rise faster than when oral products are used")
According to what is written at the beginning of WP:MEDRS ("non-medical information in medicine-articles – is covered by the general guideline"), the first kind is covered by WP:RS and the second kind by WP:MEDRS; and both kinds can figure in medicine-articles.
Riffstilde (talk) 15:35, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
- Your number 1 just needs RS as it is primarily about regulation ("society and culture" stuff). Your #2 needs MEDRS, as it is biomedical information. See WP:Biomedical information. There is a link to it in this guideline. Jytdog (talk) 15:40, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks. I just added the link to WP:Biomedical information after reading your reply. Riffstilde (talk) 16:41, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
- It was already there. Please slow down and read more carefully. You are wasting everyone's time, including your own. Jytdog (talk) 16:46, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
- Hello Jytdog, I am sure you are right and the link is somewhere on the page. I could not find it and I still cannot find it. This is why I added it where I feel it belongs to, which is where I looked for the information when I read and reread the page. I believe it will save people time to have the info where they need it. I believe it would be good if you side stepped a little and let a day or 2 pass before you jump on any modifications : people take time to think and prepare their edits (In my case I had studied this for a couple hours). They need to feel respected , and they may not be as wrong as it may seem at first. So, I will put this stuff back on, and please take some time to consider it. It tries to solve an issue. Maybe you have a better way to solve the issue. The issue is that what is and what is not biomedical info can only be found in another page, but this is not indicated in this page introduction. That's why I feel it needs to be part of the introduction. Riffstilde (talk) 17:08, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
- It there in the lead already, in the second sentence. Please read more carefully. Jytdog (talk) 17:34, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks. You are right, but I still think it needs to be in the text because that's where it belongs to (when reading the paragraph, you can ask yourself how to define medical content, and you will not figure out that the answer is actually in another page about biomedical info, not about medical info):
- "Wikipedia's articles are not medical advice, but are widely used as a source for health information.[1] For this reason, all biomedical information must be based on reliable, third-party published secondary sources, and must accurately reflect current knowledge. This guideline supports the general sourcing policy with specific attention to what is appropriate for medical content in any Wikipedia article, including those on alternative medicine. Sourcing for all other types of content – including non-medical information in medicine-articles – is covered by the general guideline on identifying reliable sources. In case of doubt about whether an information is to be treated as (bio)medical, check WP:biomedical information." Riffstilde (talk) 18:22, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
- We use "biomedical" in relation to Wikipedia:Biomedical information. We've discussed "biomedical" extensively at this talk page. See Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)/Archive 21#Clarifying "biomedical" and Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)/Archive 25#Biomedical and health. Especially see that latter discussion, which closed with WP:RfC consensus for "biomedical" over "biomedical and health." Stop WP:Edit warring over long-standing content at this guideline, and seek WP:Consensus. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:44, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
- It there in the lead already, in the second sentence. Please read more carefully. Jytdog (talk) 17:34, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
- Hello Jytdog, I am sure you are right and the link is somewhere on the page. I could not find it and I still cannot find it. This is why I added it where I feel it belongs to, which is where I looked for the information when I read and reread the page. I believe it will save people time to have the info where they need it. I believe it would be good if you side stepped a little and let a day or 2 pass before you jump on any modifications : people take time to think and prepare their edits (In my case I had studied this for a couple hours). They need to feel respected , and they may not be as wrong as it may seem at first. So, I will put this stuff back on, and please take some time to consider it. It tries to solve an issue. Maybe you have a better way to solve the issue. The issue is that what is and what is not biomedical info can only be found in another page, but this is not indicated in this page introduction. That's why I feel it needs to be part of the introduction. Riffstilde (talk) 17:08, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
- It was already there. Please slow down and read more carefully. You are wasting everyone's time, including your own. Jytdog (talk) 16:46, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks. I just added the link to WP:Biomedical information after reading your reply. Riffstilde (talk) 16:41, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
- Regarding this and this, I thought you had removed "biomedical." But regarding replacing "medical" with "biomedical," I feel that this could be used as a WP:Gaming the system tactic, where some editors will claim that, in their view, certain content is not biomedical and therefore doesn't fall under this guideline. As seen by the aforementioned debates, that likely needs further discussion. After all, we aren't going to remove every mention of "medical" from the guideline or replace every mention with "biomedical." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:04, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
- It is "in the text". The changes were not helpful. Please stop changing this and try to understand it first, instead. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:29, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
- I still find the beginning of the article confusing: I would like the meaning of medical content, medical information, non-medical information to be defined, or the wording simplified. I think my edits were rightly simplifying, but it was not in the purpose of replacing medical with biomedical. It was a purpose of simplifying to make the text unambiguous by eliminating medical content which I found excessively confusing. I also replaced medical by biomedical for another reason: I believed the 2 words had the same signification in the article. If you still keep biomedical information, medical content and medical information, it makes it not understandable what must and must not follow biomedical guidelines. How can you keep 2 different words: medical and biomedical and ask to refer to biomedical guidelines for both of them? What about medical content? What is it? Will you refer me to biomedical guidelines, as the article does? Riffstilde (talk) 12:45, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- The reason for this, is discussed in the archives of this page. Jytdog (talk) 12:48, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- Hello Jytdog, (1) I am not seeing how your reply addresses my remark about removing ambiguity and poor wording. Whatever the policy expressed in the article, it must be stated clearly. (2) If you want to refer me to the archive, please indicate a precise reference. Thanks. Riffstilde (talk) 17:21, 9 October 2018 (UTC) ↓
- The reason for this, is discussed in the archives of this page. Jytdog (talk) 12:48, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- I still find the beginning of the article confusing: I would like the meaning of medical content, medical information, non-medical information to be defined, or the wording simplified. I think my edits were rightly simplifying, but it was not in the purpose of replacing medical with biomedical. It was a purpose of simplifying to make the text unambiguous by eliminating medical content which I found excessively confusing. I also replaced medical by biomedical for another reason: I believed the 2 words had the same signification in the article. If you still keep biomedical information, medical content and medical information, it makes it not understandable what must and must not follow biomedical guidelines. How can you keep 2 different words: medical and biomedical and ask to refer to biomedical guidelines for both of them? What about medical content? What is it? Will you refer me to biomedical guidelines, as the article does? Riffstilde (talk) 12:45, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
→ Two points from my perspective: (1) This kind of language, particularly early in a discussion, is disrespectful: "Please slow down and read more carefully. You are wasting everyone's time, including your own." At a time when Wikipedia needs more good editors, tact, courtesy, and respect are much more important than being right.
(2) I agree with Riffstilde, who is simply trying to improve understanding for the average Wikipedia customer (visitor, consumer, reader). Those of you who have used (and helped improve) WP:MEDRS for years seem to (at times) forget that you know these issues inside and out, whereas the average Wikipedia reader (and editor) is encountering them for only the first or second time. Therefore, making it relatively easy for the average reader/editor to discover how we define "biomedical information" improves their understanding, makes them a better editor, and forestalls questions about the term on this Talk page and elsewhere.
I support Riffstilde's proposed edit:
Wikipedia's articles are not medical advice, but are widely used as a source for health information.[1] For this reason, all biomedical information must be based on reliable, third-party published secondary sources, and must accurately reflect current knowledge. This guideline supports the general sourcing policy with specific attention to what is appropriate for medical content in any Wikipedia article, including those on alternative medicine. Sourcing for all other types of content – including non-medical information in medicine-articles – is covered by the general guideline on identifying reliable sources. In case of doubt about whether an information is to be treated as (bio)medical, check WP:biomedical information.
- Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 17:40, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- P.S. When I write that I "support" Riffstilde's proposed edit, I do not mean to imply that I support their exact wording only, i.e., we might want to hash out precise wording that we agree on (consensus). - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 20:17, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Draft:TAPSE: Tricuspid Annular Plane of Systolic Excursion[edit]
Hi, I came across this draft while going through the WP:AFC queue. I'm not sure if this qualifies as an article, or if the sources are reliable. If a member of the project could have a look and advise, I would appreciate it. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:17, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Assessing pertinence based on the number of patients?[edit]
I had a disagreement with another contributor on the pertinence of some sources. The sources are systematic reviews on clinical trials (on humans), published by notable publishers. For this, no disagreement. But the disagreement comes from the fact that these reviews are made on not enough patients (we talk here about hundreds when doing the total over all reviewed trials). The context is that this is pertaining to "innovative" fields, in the sense that there is not as much interest (and thus funding or patients) as in others like Alzheimer. In my opinion, this context should be taken into account, and if all other reliability factors are greenlight, the source is admissible. But the other contributor has the opposite view
. I checked MEDRS and found no mention of accounting for the number of patients. Here is an example source where we disagreed: [1]. Also, to add a bit more context, the goal was to say that "to date, this compound has shown no significantly beneficial effect", which is a non extraordinary claim (negative result). So, should the number of patients be accounted? Thank you in advance for your advices/thoughts! --Signimu (talk) 21:54, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- You can have strong evidence of an effect from a small numbe of patients if the effect size is large. The harder thing to do is to interpret negative results based on a small number of trials/patients. It makes sense to me to be guided by the wording in the systematic review being referenced. Bondegezou (talk) 23:53, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Bondegezou: Thank you very much for your reply! How would you define "small number of trials/patients" in the case of negative results? Or should I just use the systematic review wording, in order to avoid any personal interpretation of "small"? --Signimu (talk) 02:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- Generally safest to stick to the systematic review's own wording, so as to avoid WP:OR. Bondegezou (talk) 13:27, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Bondegezou: Thank you very much for your reply! How would you define "small number of trials/patients" in the case of negative results? Or should I just use the systematic review wording, in order to avoid any personal interpretation of "small"? --Signimu (talk) 02:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Template:CC-notice[edit]
Moonriddengirl, regarding this and this, should we include the "Removing the CC-notice for copyrighted content will result in a copyright violation." sentence in this guideline? After all, Template:CC-notice states, in part, "This template should not be used when you cite a source, but still write all the article content in your own words." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:33, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
- "Copying content under a compatible license requires a template under the correct license. Removing it for copied content under a compatible license will result in a copyright violation." When the content is written in your own words is not relevant to this discussion. This is for content that is not written in your own words for copied content under one of the various compatible licenses. It is also a good idea to add a template for content in the public domain. QuackGuru (talk) 09:44, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
- It is an ongoing problem. Numerous editors think if the content is under an appropriate license they can copy the content without using one of the templates.
- This is happening across numerous topics. Even for content in the public domain it is required to use a template to avoid plagiarism. QuackGuru (talk) 16:26, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
- Hi. Just because I was pinged by Flyer22 Reborn, popping in to say that I don't have any real strong opinion over whether this information is included in this guideline or not. It's included in several relevant policies, guidelines, and protocol pages, so I don't regard it as essential. Not all pages can or should include all information.
- If it is included, I prefer the text as presented by [User:QuackGuru|QuackGuru]] just above - the starker "Removing the CC-notice for copyrighted content will result in a copyright violation." is misleading, at least by itself. The content remains copyrighted whether it is copied or properly paraphrased. When properly paraphrased, citation is necessary to avoid plagiarism, but the CC-notice is not. The language "Copying content under a compatible license requires a template under the correct license. Removing it for copied content under a compatible license will result in a copyright violation" is clearer. That said, again, I don't have a strong opinion. Perhaps some of the editors who work on these particular suite of guidance pages might be better at guiding consensus here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:50, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you, Moonriddengirl. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- If it is included, I prefer the text as presented by [User:QuackGuru|QuackGuru]] just above - the starker "Removing the CC-notice for copyrighted content will result in a copyright violation." is misleading, at least by itself. The content remains copyrighted whether it is copied or properly paraphrased. When properly paraphrased, citation is necessary to avoid plagiarism, but the CC-notice is not. The language "Copying content under a compatible license requires a template under the correct license. Removing it for copied content under a compatible license will result in a copyright violation" is clearer. That said, again, I don't have a strong opinion. Perhaps some of the editors who work on these particular suite of guidance pages might be better at guiding consensus here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:50, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- And just to be clear, I was asking about the accuracy of the "Removing the CC-notice for copyrighted content will result in a copyright violation." statement (even though my question above was about inclusion). You answered that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:59, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- The content is accurate but doesn't belong here -- WP:OFFTOPIC. This guideline is WP:Not the kitchen sink... Jytdog (talk) 09:37, 13 November 2018 (UTC)