Contents 1 Definitions 2 Basic advice 2.1 Respect secondary sources 2.2 Summarize scientific consensus 2.3 Assess evidence quality 2.4 Avoid over-emphasizing single studies, particularly in vitro or animal studies 2.5 Use up-to-date evidence 2.6 Use independent sources 2.7 Bias 2.7.1 Personal conflicts of interest 3 Choosing sources 3.1 Non-free content 3.2 Don't just cite the abstract 3.3 Biomedical journals 3.3.1 Predatory journals 3.4 Books 3.5 Medical and scientific organizations 3.6 Popular press 3.7 Other sources 4 Searching for sources 5 Templates 6 See also 7 References 8 Further reading


Definitions[edit] Shortcut WP:MEDDEF Further information: Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary and secondary sources, and Difference between third-person and secondary source In the biomedical literature: A primary source in medicine is one in which the authors directly participated in the research or documented their personal experiences. They examined the patients, injected the rats, filled the test tubes, or at least supervised those who did. Many, but not all, papers published in medical journals are primary sources for facts about the research and discoveries made. A secondary source in medicine summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources, usually to provide an overview of current understanding of the topic, to make recommendations, or to combine results of several studies. Examples include literature reviews or systematic reviews found in medical journals, specialist academic or professional books, and medical guidelines or position statements published by major health organizations. A tertiary source usually summarizes a range of secondary sources. Undergraduate or graduate level textbooks, edited scientific books, lay scientific books, and encyclopedias are examples of tertiary sources. Per the policies of neutral point of view, no original research, and verifiability, Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, independent, published secondary or tertiary sources. For biomedical content, primary sources should generally not be used. This is because primary biomedical literature is exploratory and often not reliable, and any given primary source may be contradicted by another. The Wikipedia community relies on guidance of expert reviews, and statements by major medical and scientific bodies. Text that relies on primary sources should usually have minimal undue weight, only be used to describe conclusions made by the source, and must describe these findings clearly so that all editors even those without specialist knowledge can check sources. Primary sources should never be cited in support of a conclusion that is not clearly made by the authors (see WP:Synthesis). Sources about health in the general news media should, in general, not be used to source content about health in Wikipedia articles but may be useful for "society and culture" content. Please see Popular press below.


Basic advice[edit] Respect secondary sources[edit] Shortcuts WP:MEDPRI WP:MEDREV Further information: Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary and secondary sources Primary sources should not be cited with intent of "debunking", contradicting, or countering any conclusions made by secondary sources. Synthesis of published material advancing a position is original research, and Wikipedia is not a venue for open research. Controversies or uncertainties in medicine should be supported by reliable secondary sources describing the varying viewpoints. Primary sources should not be aggregated or presented without context in order to undermine proportionate representation of opinion in a field. If material can be supported by either primary or secondary sources – the secondary sources should be used. Primary sources may be presented together with secondary sources. Findings are often touted in the popular press as soon as original, primary research is reported, before the scientific community has analyzed and commented on the results. Therefore, such sources should generally be entirely omitted (see recentism). Determining weight of studies generally requires reliable secondary sources (not press releases or newspaper articles based on such sources). If conclusions are worth mentioning (such as large randomized clinical trials with surprising results), they should be described appropriately as from a single study: "A large, NIH-funded study published in 2010 found that selenium and Vitamin E supplements, separately as well as together, did not decrease the risk of getting prostate cancer and that vitamin E may increase the risk; they were previously thought to prevent prostate cancer." (citing PMID 20924966) Given time a review will be published, and the primary sources should preferably be replaced with the review. Using secondary sources then allows facts to be stated with greater reliability: "Neither vitamin E nor selenium decreases the risk of prostate cancer and vitamin E may increase it." (citing PMID 23552052) If no reviews on the subject are published in a reasonable amount of time, then the content and primary source should be removed. A reason to avoid primary sources in the biomedical field – especially papers reporting results of in vitro experiments – is that they are often not replicable[2][3][4] and are therefore unsuitable for use in generating encyclopedic, reliable biomedical content. Drug discovery scientists at Bayer in 2011 reported that they were able to replicate results in only ~20 to 25% of the prominent studies they examined;[5] scientists from Amgen followed with a publication in 2012 showing that they were only able to replicate 6 (11%) of 53 high-impact publications and called for higher standards in scientific publishing.[6] The journal Nature announced in April 2013 that in response to these and other articles showing a widespread problem with reproducibility, it was taking measures to raise its standards.[7] Further, the fact that a claim is published in a refereed journal need not make it true. Even well-designed randomized experiments will occasionally (with low probability) produce spurious results. Experiments and studies can produce flawed results or even fall victim to deliberate fraud (e.g. the Retracted article on dopaminergic neurotoxicity of MDMA and the Schön scandal.) Summarize scientific consensus[edit] Shortcut WP:MEDSCI Scientific journals are the best place to find both primary source articles about experiments, including medical studies, and secondary sources. Every rigorous scientific journal is peer reviewed. Be careful of material published in journals lacking peer review or which reports material mainly in other fields. (See: Martin Rimm.) Be careful of material published in disreputable journals or disreputable fields. (See: Sokal affair.) Wikipedia policies on the neutral point of view and not publishing original research demand that we present prevailing medical or scientific consensus, which can be found in recent, authoritative review articles, in statements and practice guidelines issued by major professional medical or scientific societies (for example, the European Society of Cardiology or the Infectious Disease Society of America) and widely respected governmental and quasi-governmental health authorities (for example, AHRQ, USPSTF, NICE, and WHO), in textbooks, or in some forms of monographs. Although significant-minority views are welcome in Wikipedia, such views must be presented in the context of their acceptance by experts in the field. Additionally, the views of tiny minorities need not be reported. Finally, make readers aware of controversies that are stated in reliable sources. A well-referenced article will point to specific journal articles or specific theories proposed by specific researchers. Assess evidence quality[edit] Shortcut WP:MEDASSESS When writing about treatment efficacy, knowledge about the quality of the evidence helps distinguish between minor and major views, determine due weight, and identify accepted evidence-based information. Even in reputable medical journals, different papers are not treated as of equal value. Studies can be categorized into levels of evidence,[8] and editors should rely on high-quality evidence, such as systematic reviews. Lower quality evidence (such as case reports) or non-evidence (such as anecdotes or conventional wisdom) are avoided. Medical guidelines or position statements by nationally or internationally recognized expert bodies also often contain assessments of underlying evidence. This guideline is not general in nature, but specifically concerns quality when used as a source for encyclopedic articles on Wikipedia. Sources that are ruled out for use on Wikipedia may still be very useful for other purposes. Procter & Gamble,[9] State University of New York [10] Canadian Association of Pharmacy in Oncology [11] There are different ways to rank level of evidence in medicine, but they similarly put high level reviews and practice guidelines at the top. The best evidence for treatment efficacy is mainly from meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).[12] Systematic reviews of literature of overall good quality and consistency, addressing specific recommendation, have less reliability when they include non-randomized studies.[13] Narrative reviews can help establish the context of evidence quality. Roughly in descending order of quality, lower-quality evidence in medical research comes from individual RCTs; other controlled studies; quasi-experimental studies; non-experimental, prospective, observational studies, such as cohort studies and case control studies; cross-sectional studies (surveys), and other correlation studies such as ecological studies; retrospective analyses; and non-evidence-based expert opinion or clinical experience. Case reports, whether in popular press or peer-reviewed medical journals, are anecdotal and generally fall below the minimum requirements of reliable medical sources. Speculative proposals and early-stage research should not be cited to imply wide acceptance. For example, results of an early-stage clinical trial would not be appropriate in the Treatment section on a disease because future treatments have little bearing on current practice. The results might – in some cases – be appropriate for inclusion in an article specifically dedicated to the treatment in question or to the researchers or businesses involved in it. Such information, particularly when citing secondary sources, may be appropriate in research sections of disease articles. To prevent misunderstanding, the text should clearly identify the level of research cited (e.g., "first-in-human safety testing"). Several formal systems exist for assessing the quality of available evidence on medical subjects.[14][15] "Assessing evidence quality" means editors should determine quality of the type of study. Respect the levels of evidence: Do not reject a high-quality type of study (e.g., a meta-analysis) in favor of a source from lower levels of evidence (e.g., any primary source) because of personal objections to the inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, or conclusions in the higher-level source. "Assessing evidence quality" means editors should determine quality of the type of source and quality of the publication. Editors should not perform detailed academic peer review. Avoid over-emphasizing single studies, particularly in vitro or animal studies[edit] Shortcut WP:MEDANIMAL In vitro studies and animal models serve a central role in research, and are invaluable in determining mechanistic pathways and generating hypotheses. However, in vitro and animal-model findings do not translate consistently into clinical effects in human beings. Where in vitro and animal-model data are cited on Wikipedia, it should be clear to the reader that the data are pre-clinical, and the article text should avoid stating or implying that reported findings hold true in humans. The level of support for a hypothesis should be evident to a reader. Using small-scale, single studies makes for weak evidence, and allows for cherry picking of data. Studies cited or mentioned in Wikipedia should be put in context by using high quality secondary sources rather than by using the primary sources. Use up-to-date evidence[edit] Shortcut WP:MEDDATE Keeping an article up-to-date while maintaining the more-important goal of reliability is important. These instructions are appropriate for actively researched areas with many primary sources and several reviews and may need to be relaxed in areas where little progress is being made or where few reviews are published. In many topics, a review that was conducted more than five or so years ago will have been superseded by more up-to-date ones, and editors should try to find those newer sources, to determine whether the expert opinion has changed since the older sources were written. The range of reviews you examine should be wide enough to catch at least one full review cycle, containing newer reviews written and published in the light of older ones and of more-recent primary studies. Assessing reviews may be difficult. While the most-recent reviews include later research results, this does not automatically give more weight to the most recent review (see recentism). Prefer recent reviews to older primary sources on the same topic. If recent reviews do not mention an older primary source, the older source is dubious. Conversely, an older primary source that is seminal, replicated, and often-cited may be mentioned in the main text in a context established by reviews. E.g., the article Genetics could mention Darwin's 1859 book On the Origin of Species as part of a discussion supported by recent reviews. There are exceptions to these rules of thumb: History sections often cite older work Cochrane Library reviews are generally of high quality and are routinely maintained even if their initial publication dates fall outside the 5-year window. A newer source which is of lower quality does not supersede an older source of higher quality. Use independent sources[edit] Shortcut WP:MEDINDY Many treatments or proposed treatments lack good research into their efficacy and safety. In such cases, reliable sources may be difficult to find, while unreliable sources are readily available. When writing about 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 marginal ideas may be used to describe personal opinions, but extreme care should be taken when using such sources lest more controversial opinions be taken at face value or, worse, asserted as fact. If independent sources discussing a medical subject are of low quality, then it is likely that the subject itself is not notable enough to have its own article or relevant for mention in other articles. Bias[edit] Shortcuts WP:MEDBIAS WP:MBIAS WP:DONTSHOUTBIAS Bias caused by conflicts of interest is an important issue in medical research. It arises in part due to the huge financial interests that compete within medicine. Disclosure of conflicts of interest is mandated, however this isn't always done – and even when it is may not be very helpful. A source can also simply be bad, where biases in various criteria make it less than ideal. However, claims of bias should not be made lightly – if you simply call out all results you don't like as biased: you end up introducing your own bias. Claims of bias should always be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and are not reason to omit sources – rather the solution is to qualify sources with information of why a source may be biased, and who is calling it biased. Because of this: obvious or overt bias in a source is a difficult problem for Wikipedia. If all editors on an article agree that a certain source should be omitted for this reason, it may rightfully be excluded. However, it is often simpler to find a "better" source, either a higher quality study type or a more specific source instead (see WP:MEDASSESS). If no high quality source exists for a controversial statement it is best to leave it out; this is not bias. Personal conflicts of interest[edit] For more details on this topic, see Wikipedia:Conflicts of interest (medicine). Shortcut WP:MEDCOI People most interested in improving an article may have a connection to its subject. Use your best judgement when writing about topics where you may have a conflict of interest: citing yourself on Wikipedia is problematic. Citing your own organization, such as a governmental health agency or an NGO producing high quality systematic reviews is generally acceptable– if it is done to improve coverage of a topic, and not with the sole purpose of driving traffic to your site. All edits should improve neutral encyclopedic coverage; anything else, such as promoting an organization is not allowed. According to the conflict of interest policy – conflicts of interest (COI) must be disclosed. Editing on topics where one is involved or closely related, especially when there is potential financial gain, is discouraged. Medicine is not an exception. One way to contribute with a COI is to post on talk-pages, suggesting edits. Another alternative is the articles for creation pathway. These methods are often best when writing about oneself, one's organization or company– but may be less so when there is a potential conflict of interest in a research field. For example, one may legitimately be an authority on a certain topic – a volunteer who reads the talk-page will not always have the knowledge to assess the sources properly. Then it is better to follow ordinary editing protocol, disclosing any COI and to be careful not to overemphasize your own sources.


Choosing sources[edit] PLoS Medicine and other open access journals can be useful as sources for images in Wikipedia articles. Because the above image was published under the terms of a Creative Commons license, it can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons and used on Wikipedia. Click on the above image to find its source. Non-free content[edit] Shortcuts WP:NOTONLYFREE WP:FUTONBIAS See also: FUTON bias A Wikipedia article should cite high-quality reliable sources regardless of whether they require a fee or a subscription. Some high-quality journals, such as JAMA, publish a few freely readable articles even though most are not free. A few high-quality journals, such as PLoS Medicine, publish only freely readable sources. Also, a few sources are in the public domain; these include many U.S. government publications, such as the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Don't just cite the abstract[edit] Shortcut WP:NOABSTRACT When searching for biomedical sources, it is wise to skim-read everything available, including abstracts of papers that are not freely readable, and use that to get a feel for what reliable sources are saying. However, when it comes to actually writing a Wikipedia article, it is misleading to give a full citation for a source after reading only its abstract; the abstract necessarily presents a stripped-down version of the conclusions and omits the background that can be crucial for understanding exactly what the source says. To access the full text, the editor may need to visit a medical library or ask someone at the WikiProject Resource Exchange or WikiProject Medicine's talk page to either provide an electronic copy or read the source and summarize what it says; if neither is possible, the editor may need to settle for using a lower-impact source. Biomedical journals[edit] Peer-reviewed medical journals are a natural choice as a source for up-to-date medical information in Wikipedia articles. Journal articles come in many different types, and are a mixture of primary and secondary sources. It is normally best to use reviews and meta-analyses where possible. Reviews in particular give a balanced and general perspective of a topic, and are usually easier to understand. Primary publications describe novel research for the first time, while review articles summarize and integrate a topic of research into an overall view. In medicine, primary sources include clinical trials, which test new treatments. Broadly speaking, reviews may be narrative or systematic (and sometimes both). Narrative reviews often set out to provide a general summary of a topic based on a survey of the literature, which can be useful when outlining a topic. Systematic reviews use sophisticated methodology to address a particular clinical question in as balanced (unbiased) a way as possible. Some systematic reviews also include a statistical meta-analysis to combine the results of several clinical trials to provide stronger quantitative evidence about how well a treatment works for a particular purpose. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials can provide strong evidence of the clinical efficacy of particular treatments in given scenarios, which may in turn be incorporated into medical guidelines or institutional position papers (ideal sources for clinical recommendations). Research papers that describe original experiments are primary sources. However, they normally contain introductory, background, or review sections that place their research in the context of previous work; these sections may be cited in Wikipedia with care: they are often incomplete[16] and typically less useful or reliable than reviews or other sources, such as textbooks, which are intended to be reasonably comprehensive. If challenged by another editor in good faith, the primary source should be supplemented with a more appropriate source. A general narrative review of a subject by an expert in the field can make a good secondary source covering various aspects of a subject within a Wikipedia article. Such reviews typically do not contain primary research, but can make interpretations and draw conclusions from primary sources that no Wikipedia editor would be allowed to do. A systematic review uses a reproducible methodology to select primary (or sometimes secondary) studies meeting explicit criteria to address a specific question. Such reviews should be more reliable and accurate and less prone to bias than a narrative review.[14] However, whereas a narrative review may give a panorama of current knowledge on a particular topic, a systematic review tends to have a narrower focus. Journals may specialize in particular article types. A few, such as Evidence-based Dentistry (ISSN 1462-0049), publish third-party summaries of reviews and guidelines published elsewhere. If an editor has access to both the original source and the summary, and finds both helpful, it is good practice to cite both sources together (see: Citing medical sources for details). Others, such as Journal of Medical Biography, publish historical material that can be valuable for History sections, but is rarely useful for current medicine. Still others, such as Medical Hypotheses, publish speculative proposals that are not reliable sources for biomedical topics. The Abridged Index Medicus provides a list of 114 selected "core clinical journals" (this subset of the medical literature can be searched in PubMed using a 'journal categories' filter).[17][18] Another useful grouping of core medical journals is the 2003 Brandon/Hill list, which includes 141 publications selected for a small medical library[19] (although this list is no longer maintained, the listed journals are of high quality). Core general medical journals include the New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), the Annals of Internal Medicine, The BMJ (British Medical Journal), and the Canadian Medical Association Journal. Core basic science and biology journals include Nature, Science and Cell. Predatory journals[edit] An integral part of finding high quality sources is avoiding articles from journals without a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. A red flag that a journal article is probably not reliable for biomedical claims might be publication by a publisher that has a reputation for exhibiting "predatory" behavior, which includes questionable business practices and/or peer-review processes that raise concerns about the reliability of their journal articles. (See also WP:RS#Predatory journals and the #References section below for examples of such publishers.[20][21]) Other indications that a biomedical journal article may not be reliable are its publication in a journal that is not indexed in the bibliographic database MEDLINE,[22] or its content being outside the journal's normal scope (for instance, an article on the efficacy of a new cancer treatment in a psychiatric journal or the surgical techniques for hip replacement in a urology journal). Determining the reliability of any individual journal article may also take into account whether the article has garnered significant positive citations in sources of undisputed reliability, suggesting wider acceptance in the medical literature despite any red flags suggested here. Jeffrey Beall did publish a list of predatory journals and publishers, but has withdrawn it due to harassment. A new list maintained by an anonymous consortium can be found at https://predatoryjournals.com. Books[edit] Shortcut WP:MEDBOOK High quality textbooks can be a good source to start an article, and often include general overviews of a field or subject. However, books generally move slower than journal sources, and are often several years behind the current state of evidence. This makes using up-to-date books even more important. Medical textbooks published by academic publishers are often excellent secondary sources. If a textbook is intended for students, it may not be as thorough as a monograph or chapter in a textbook intended for professionals or postgraduates. Ensure that the book is up to date, unless a historical perspective is required. Doody's maintains a list of core health sciences books, which is available only to subscribers.[23] Major academic publishers (e.g., Elsevier, Springer Verlag, Wolters Kluwer, and Informa) publish specialized medical book series with good editorial oversight; volumes in these series summarize the latest research in narrow areas, usually in a more extensive format than journal reviews. Specialized biomedical encyclopaedias published by these established publishers are often of good quality, but as a tertiary source, the information may be too terse for detailed articles. Additionally, popular science books are useful sources, but generally should not be referenced on Wikipedia to support medical statements (see #Popular press). In addition, most self-published books or books published by vanity presses undergo no independent fact-checking or peer review and, consequently, are not reliable sources. However, books published by university presses or the National Academy of Sciences, tend to be well-researched and useful for most purposes. Medical and scientific organizations[edit] Shortcut WP:MEDORG Guidelines and position statements provided by major medical and scientific organizations are important on Wikipedia because they present recommendations and opinions that many caregivers rely upon (or may even be legally obliged to follow). Guidelines by major medical and scientific organizations sometimes clash with one another (for example, the World Health Organization and American Heart Association on salt intake), which should be resolved in accordance with WP:WEIGHT. Guidelines do not always correspond to best evidence, but instead of omitting them, reference the scientific literature and explain how it may differ from the guidelines. Remember to avoid WP:original research by only using the best possible sources, and avoid weasel words and phrases by tying together separate statements with "however", "this is not supported by", etc. The image below attempts to clarify some internal ranking of statements from different organizations in the weight they are given on Wikipedia. Guidelines are important on Wikipedia because they present recommended practices and positions of major authorities. Statements and information from reputable major medical and scientific bodies may be valuable encyclopedic sources. These bodies include the U.S. National Academies (including the National Academy of Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences), the British National Health Service, the U.S. National Institutes of Health and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the World Health Organization. The reliability of these sources ranges 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. * Health technology assessments or HTAs are the gold standard when it comes to assessing evidence quality. They take into account various aspects such as effect, risks, economic costs, and ethical concerns of a treatment. They seldom make recommendations, but instead explain most effective treatments, potential hazards and discuss gaps in knowledge. Their name is somewhat of a misnomer as they do not need to concern "technology" as perceived by the public – but rather any intervention intended to improve health. Popular press[edit] Shortcut WP:MEDPOP The popular press is generally not a reliable source for scientific and medical information in articles. Most medical news articles fail to discuss important issues such as evidence quality,[24] costs, and risks versus benefits,[25] and news articles too often convey wrong or misleading information about health care.[26] Articles in newspapers and popular magazines generally lack the context to judge experimental results. They tend to overemphasize the certainty of any result, for instance, presenting a new and experimental treatment as "the cure" for a disease or an every-day substance as "the cause" of a disease. 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 themselves promote research with uncertain relevance to human health and do not acknowledge important limitations, even when issued by an academic medical center.[27] News articles also tend neither to report adequately on the scientific methodology and the experimental error, nor to express risk in meaningful terms. For Wikipedia's purposes, articles in the popular press are generally considered independent, primary sources. A news article should therefore not be used as a sole source for a medical fact or figure. Editors are encouraged to seek out the scholarly research behind the news story. One possibility is to cite a higher-quality source along with a more-accessible popular source, for example, with the |laysummary= parameter of {{cite journal}}. Conversely, the high-quality popular press can be a good source for social, biographical, current-affairs, financial, and historical information in a medical article. For example, popular science magazines such as New Scientist and Scientific American are not peer reviewed, but sometimes feature articles that explain medical subjects in plain English. As the quality of press coverage of medicine ranges from excellent to irresponsible, use common sense, and see how well the source fits the verifiability policy and general reliable sources guidelines. Sources for evaluating health-care media coverage include the review websites Behind the Headlines, Health News Review, and Media Doctor, along with specialized academic journals, such as the Journal of Health Communication; reviews can also appear in the American Journal of Public Health, the Columbia Journalism Review, Ben Goldacre's Bad Science column and others. Health News Review's criteria for rating news stories[28] can help to get a general idea of the quality of a medical news article. Other sources[edit] Reliable sources must be strong enough to support the claim. A lightweight source may sometimes be acceptable for a lightweight claim, but never for an extraordinary claim. Press releases, newsletters, advocacy and self-help publications, blogs and other websites, and other sources contain a wide range of biomedical information ranging from factual to fraudulent, with a high percentage being of low quality. Conference abstracts present incomplete and unpublished data and undergo varying levels of review; they are often unreviewed and their initial conclusions may have changed dramatically if and when the data are finally ready for publication.[29] Consequently, they are usually poor sources and should always be used with caution, never used to support surprising claims, and carefully identified in the text as preliminary work. Peer-reviewed medical information resources such as WebMD, UpToDate, and eMedicine are usually acceptable sources for uncontroversial information; however, as much as possible Wikipedia articles should cite the more established literature directly.


Searching for sources[edit] Shortcut WP:MEDSEARCH Search engines are commonly used to find biomedical sources. Each engine has quirks, advantages, and disadvantages, and may not return the results that the editor needs unless used carefully. It typically takes experience and practice to recognize when a search has not been effective; even if an editor finds useful sources, they may have missed other sources that would have been more useful or they may generate pages and pages of less-than-useful material. A good strategy for avoiding sole reliance on search engines is to find a few recent high-quality sources and follow their citations to see what the search engine missed. It can also be helpful to perform a plain web search rather than one of scholarly articles only. PubMed is an excellent starting point for locating peer-reviewed medical literature reviews on humans from the last five years. It offers a free search engine for accessing the MEDLINE database of biomedical research articles offered by the National Library of Medicine at the U.S. National Institutes of Health.[30] There are basic and advanced options for searching PubMed.[18] For example, clicking on the "Review" tab will help narrow the search to review articles. The "Limits" tab can further limit the search, for example, to meta-analyses, to freely readable sources, and/or "core clinical journals". Although PubMed is a comprehensive database, many of its indexed journals restrict online access. Another website, PubMed Central, provides free access to full texts. While it is often not the official published version, it is a peer-reviewed manuscript that is substantially the same, but lacks minor copy-editing by the publisher.[31] When looking at an individual abstract on the PubMed website, an editor can click on "Publication Types, MeSH Terms" at the bottom of the page to see how PubMed has classified a document. For example, a page that is tagged as "Comment" or "Letter" is a non-peer-reviewed letter to the editor. The classification scheme includes about 70 types of documents.[1] (dead link) For medical information, the most useful types of articles are typically labeled "Guideline", "Meta-analysis", "Practice guideline", or "Review". Even when an article is one of the most useful types and recently published, it can be helpful to check the journal's impact factor if it makes extraordinary claims. There is no magic number for impact factor, but it is useful to compare your target journal's impact factor to others' in its field of study.


Templates[edit] {{medcn}} or {{mcn}} – adds:[medical citation needed] {{medrs}} or {{ums}} – adds: [unreliable medical source?] {{Primary source-inline}} or {{npsn}} – adds:[non-primary source needed] {{RSPlease}} – a note for user talk pages with links to this page {{Medref}} – maintenance tag for articles lacking reliable medical sources {{Reliable sources for medical articles}} – for talk pages


See also[edit] Reliable source examples in physical sciences, mathematics and medicine Wikipedia:Conflicts of interest (medicine) Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (natural sciences) Wikipedia:Why MEDRS?, an essay about why this guideline exists Users' Guides to the Medical Literature Dispatches: Sources in biology and medicine. The Wikipedia Signpost (2008-06-30)


References[edit] ^ Laurent, MR; Vickers, TJ (2009). "Seeking health information online: does Wikipedia matter?". Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. 16 (4): 471–09. doi:10.1197/jamia.M3059. PMC 2705249 . PMID 19390105.  ^ Loscalzo, J. (2012). "Irreproducible Experimental Results: Causes, (Mis)interpretations, and Consequences". Circulation. 125 (10): 1211–14. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.112.098244. ISSN 0009-7322. PMC 3319669 . PMID 22412087.  ^ Naik, Gutnam (December 2, 2011). "Scientists' Elusive Goal: Reproducing Study Results". Wall Street Journal.  ^ Nature's Challenges in Reproducibility initiative ^ Prinz F et al. Believe it or not: how much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets? Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 10, 712 (September 2011) | doi:10.1038/nrd3439-c1 ^ C. Glenn Begley & Lee M. Ellis "Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research" Nature 483, 531–33 (29 March 2012) doi:10.1038/483531a ^ Editors of Nature. April 24 2013 Announcement: Reducing our irreproducibility ^ Wright, J. G. (2007). "A practical guide to assigning levels of evidence". The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American). 89 (5): 1128–30. doi:10.2106/JBJS.F.01380. PMID 17473152.  ^ "Evidence-Based Decision Making: Introduction and Formulating Good Clinical Questions | Continuing Education Course | dentalcare.com Course Pages | DentalCare.com". www.dentalcare.com. Retrieved 2015-09-03.  ^ "SUNY Downstate EBM Tutorial". library.downstate.edu. Retrieved 2015-09-03.  ^ "The Journey of Research - Levels of Evidence | CAPhO". www.capho.org. Retrieved 2015-09-03.  ^ Straus SE, Richardson WS, Glasziou P, Haynes RB (2005). Evidence-based Medicine: How to Practice and Teach EBM (3rd ed.). Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone. pp. 102–05. ISBN 0443074445.  ^ Straus SE, Richardson WS, Glasziou P, Haynes RB (2005). Evidence-based Medicine: How to Practice and Teach EBM (3rd ed.). Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone. p. 99. ISBN 0443074445.  ^ a b Greenhalgh T (1997). "How to read a paper: Papers that summarise other papers (systematic reviews and meta-analyses)" (PDF). BMJ. 315 (7109): 672–75. PMC 2127461 . PMID 9310574.  ^ Young JM, Solomon MJ (2009). "How to critically appraise an article". Nature Clinical Practice Gastroenterology & Hepatology. 6 (2): 82–91. doi:10.1038/ncpgasthep1331. PMID 19153565.  ^ Robinson KA, Goodman SN (2011). "A systematic examination of the citation of prior research in reports of randomized, controlled trials". Annals of Internal Medicine. 154 (1): 50–55. doi:10.1059/0003-4819-154-1-201101040-00007 (inactive 2018-01-20). PMID 21200038.  ^ "Abridged Index Medicus (AIM or "Core Clinical") Journal Titles". NLM. Retrieved 17 November 2012.  ^ a b "PubMed tutorial: filters". NLM. Retrieved 17 November 2012.  ^ Hill DR, Stickell H, Crow SJ (2003). "Brandon/Hill selected list of print books for the small medical library" (PDF). Mt. Sinai School of Medicine. Archived from the original on June 15, 2011. Retrieved 2008-09-16.  ^ Beall, Jeffrey (25 February 2015). "Predatory open access journals in a performance-based funding model: Common journals in Beall's list and in version V of the VABB-SHW" (PDF).  ^ Beall, Jeffrey. "Potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open-access publishers". Archived from the original on 17 January 2017.  ^ To determine if a journal is MEDLINE indexed, go to this website, and search for the name of the journal. On the journal page, under the heading "Current Indexing Status", you can see whether or not the journal is currently indexed. Note that journals that have changed names or ceased publication will not be "currently" indexed on MEDLINE, but their indexing status, when they were being published, can be viewed under other headings on that same page. ^ Shedlock J, Walton LJ (2006). "Developing a virtual community for health sciences library book selection: Doody's Core Titles". Journal of the Medical Library Association. 94 (1): 61–66. PMC 1324773 . PMID 16404471.  ^ Cooper, B. E. J.; Lee, W. E.; Goldacre, B. M.; Sanders, T. A. B. (May 2011). "The quality of the evidence for dietary advice given in UK national newspapers". Public Understanding of Science. 21 (6): 664. doi:10.1177/0963662511401782. Lay summary – The Guardian.  ^ Schwitzer G (2008). "How do US journalists cover treatments, tests, products, and procedures? an evaluation of 500 stories". PLoS Med. 5 (5): e95. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0050095. PMC 2689661 . PMID 18507496. Lay summary – Guardian (2008-06-21).  ^ Dentzer S (2009). "Communicating medical news – pitfalls of health care journalism". The New England Journal of Medicine. 360 (1): 1–3. doi:10.1056/NEJMp0805753. PMID 19118299.  ^ Woloshin S, Schwartz LM, Casella SL, Kennedy AT, Larson RJ (2009). "Press releases by academic medical centers: not so academic?". Annals of Internal Medicine. 150 (9): 613–18. PMID 19414840.  ^ "How we rate stories". Health News Review. 2008. Archived from the original on 2012-07-23. Retrieved 2009-03-26.  ^ Rosmarakis, E. S.; Soteriades, E. S.; Vergidis, P. I.; Kasiakou, S. K.; Falagas, M. E. (2005). "From conference abstract to full paper: Differences between data presented in conferences and journals". The FASEB Journal. 19 (7): 673–80. doi:10.1096/fj.04-3140lfe. PMID 15857882.  ^ Greenhalgh T (1997). "How to read a paper: The Medline database". BMJ. 315 (7101): 180–83. PMC 2127107 . PMID 9251552.  ^ Goodman D, Dowson S, Yaremchuk J (2007). "Open access and accuracy: author-archived manuscripts vs. published articles" (PDF). Learned Publishing. 20 (3): 203–15. doi:10.1087/095315107X204012. Retrieved 2008-10-24. 


Further reading[edit] Greenhalgh T (2006). How to Read a Paper: The Basics of Evidence-based Medicine (3rd ed.). BMJ Books. ISBN 1405139765.  The Greenhalgh citation in References is taken from an earlier version of this book, which was serialized in BMJ. Other parts of that serialization include: Greenhalgh T (1997). "How to read a paper: Getting your bearings (deciding what the paper is about)". BMJ. 315 (7102): 243–46. PMC 2127173 . PMID 9253275.  Greenhalgh T (1997). "How to read a paper: Assessing the methodological quality of published papers". BMJ. 315 (7103): 305–08. PMC 2127212 . PMID 9274555.  Greenhalgh T (1997). "How to read a paper: Statistics for the non-statistician. I: Different types of data need different statistical tests". BMJ. 315 (7104): 364–66. PMC 2127256 . PMID 9270463.  Greenhalgh T (1997). "How to read a paper: Statistics for the non-statistician. II: 'Significant' relations and their pitfalls". BMJ. 315 (7105): 422–25. PMC 2127270 . PMID 9277611.  Greenhalgh T (1997). "How to read a paper: Papers that report drug trials". BMJ. 315 (7106): 480–83. PMC 2127321 . PMID 9284672.  Greenhalgh T (1997). "How to read a paper: Papers that report diagnostic or screening tests". BMJ. 315 (7107): 540–43. PMC 2127365 . PMID 9329312.  Greenhalgh T (1997). "How to read a paper: Papers that tell you what things cost (economic analyses)". BMJ. 315 (7108): 596–99. PMC 2127419 . PMID 9302961.  Greenhalgh T, Taylor R (1997). "How to read a paper: Papers that go beyond numbers (qualitative research)". BMJ. 315 (7110): 740–43. PMC 2127518 . PMID 9314762.  Straus SE, Richardson WS, Glasziou P, Haynes RB (2005). Evidence-based Medicine: How to Practice and Teach EBM (3rd ed.). Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone. ISBN 0443074445.  "Users' Guides to Evidence-Based Practice". Centre for Health Evidence. 2001. Retrieved 2014-07-09.  This is derived from a prepublication version of a series published in JAMA. Bobick, James E.; Berard, G. L. (30 April 2011). Science and Technology Resources: A Guide for Information Professionals and Researchers. ABC-CLIO. ISBN 978-1591587941.  Garrard, Judith (25 October 2010). Health Sciences Literature Review Made Easy. Jones & Bartlett Publishers. ISBN 978-1449618681. Retrieved 16 September 2012.  Gray M (2009). Evidence-Based Health Care and Public Health: How to Make Decisions About Health Services and Public Health (3rd ed.). Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone. ISBN 978-0443101236.  Vitamin D & cancer: How can two news releases about the same study be polar opposites? Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)&oldid=825461710" Categories: Wikipedia content guidelinesWikipedia reliable sourcesWikipedia sourcesHidden categories: Pages with DOIs inactive since 2018


Navigation menu Personal tools Not logged inTalkContributionsCreate accountLog in Namespaces Project pageTalk Variants Views ReadEditView history More Search Navigation Main pageContentsFeatured contentCurrent eventsRandom articleDonate to WikipediaWikipedia store Interaction HelpAbout WikipediaCommunity portalRecent changesContact page Tools What links hereRelated changesUpload fileSpecial pagesPermanent linkPage informationWikidata item Print/export Create a bookDownload as PDFPrintable version Languages Deutschفارسی日本語PolskiRomânăSvenska中文 Edit links This page was last edited on 13 February 2018, at 15:10. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization. Privacy policy About Wikipedia Disclaimers Contact Wikipedia Developers Cookie statement Mobile view (window.RLQ=window.RLQ||[]).push(function(){mw.config.set({"wgPageParseReport":{"limitreport":{"cputime":"0.528","walltime":"0.660","ppvisitednodes":{"value":3903,"limit":1000000},"ppgeneratednodes":{"value":0,"limit":1500000},"postexpandincludesize":{"value":215101,"limit":2097152},"templateargumentsize":{"value":66616,"limit":2097152},"expansiondepth":{"value":16,"limit":40},"expensivefunctioncount":{"value":22,"limit":500},"entityaccesscount":{"value":0,"limit":400},"timingprofile":["100.00% 552.047 1 -total"," 32.77% 180.932 1 Template:Reflist"," 23.30% 128.632 23 Template:Cite_journal"," 13.11% 72.389 1 Template:Columns-list"," 11.32% 62.474 15 Template:Shortcut"," 8.79% 48.515 1 Template:Subcat_guideline"," 8.32% 45.955 1 Template:Ombox"," 5.82% 32.139 9 Template:Cite_web"," 5.13% 28.325 7 Template:Cite_book"," 5.04% 27.825 3 Template:Sidebar"]},"scribunto":{"limitreport-timeusage":{"value":"0.278","limit":"10.000"},"limitreport-memusage":{"value":6154437,"limit":52428800}},"cachereport":{"origin":"mw1333","timestamp":"20180217151827","ttl":1900800,"transientcontent":false}}});});(window.RLQ=window.RLQ||[]).push(function(){mw.config.set({"wgBackendResponseTime":80,"wgHostname":"mw1266"});});


Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine) - Photos and All Basic Informations

Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine) More Links

Wikipedia:VerifiabilityWikipedia:No Original ResearchWikipedia:Manual Of Style (medicine-related Articles)Wikipedia:Identifying Reliable Sources (natural Sciences)Wikipedia:Biomedical InformationCategory:Wikipedia Content GuidelinesWikipedia:What "Ignore All Rules" MeansWikipedia:Ignore All RulesWikipedia:ConsensusWikipedia Talk:Identifying Reliable Sources (medicine)Wikipedia:ShortcutBiomedicalLiterature ReviewSystematic ReviewMedical JournalMedical GuidelineCategory:Wikipedia GuidelinesWikipedia:List Of GuidelinesWikipedia:List Of PoliciesCategory:Wikipedia Behavioral GuidelinesWikipedia:Assume Good FaithWikipedia:Conflict Of InterestWikipedia:Courtesy VanishingWikipedia:Disruptive EditingWikipedia:Please Do Not Bite The NewcomersWikipedia:Do Not Disrupt Wikipedia To Illustrate A PointWikipedia:EtiquetteWikipedia:Gaming The SystemWikipedia:User PagesWikipedia:List Of GuidelinesCategory:Wikipedia DiscussionWikipedia:Talk Page GuidelinesWikipedia:SignaturesCategory:Wikipedia Content GuidelinesWikipedia:Citing SourcesWikipedia:Identifying Reliable SourcesWikipedia:Fringe TheoriesWikipedia:Non-free ContentWikipedia:Offensive MaterialWikipedia:Do Not Include The Full Text Of Lengthy Primary SourcesWikipedia:Do Not Create HoaxesWikipedia:Patent NonsenseWikipedia:External LinksWikipedia:List Of GuidelinesCategory:Wikipedia Editing GuidelinesWikipedia:Article SizeWikipedia:Be BoldHelp:Edit SummaryWikipedia:ShortcutWikipedia:Make Technical Articles UnderstandableWikipedia:List Of GuidelinesCategory:Wikipedia CategorizationWikipedia:Categories, Lists, And Navigation TemplatesWikipedia:CategorizationWikipedia:DisambiguationWikipedia:SubpagesCategory:Wikipedia Style GuidelinesWikipedia:Manual Of StyleWikipedia:Manual Of Style/ContentsWikipedia:Manual Of Style/ListsWikipedia:Manual Of Style/TablesCategory:Wikipedia Deletion GuidelinesWikipedia:Deletion ProcessWikipedia:Speedy KeepWikipedia:Deletion Guidelines For AdministratorsWikipedia:List Of GuidelinesWikipedia:List Of GuidelinesWikipedia:List Of GuidelinesTemplate:Guideline ListTemplate Talk:Guideline ListWikipedia:Medical DisclaimerWikipedia:Biomedical InformationSecondary SourceWikipedia:VerifiabilityAlternative MedicineWikipedia:Identifying Reliable SourcesLiterature ReviewSystematic ReviewMedical JournalMedical GuidelinePrimary SourceIn VitroClinical TrialWikipedia:Reliable Sources/NoticeboardWikipedia Talk:WikiProject MedicineWikipedia Talk:WikiProject PharmacologyWikipedia:ShortcutWikipedia:PSTSWikipedia:Identifying And Using Primary And Secondary SourcesWikipedia:Party And PersonPrimary SourceSecondary SourceMeta-analysisLiterature ReviewSystematic ReviewTertiary SourceWikipedia:NPOVWikipedia:ORWikipedia:VERIFYWikipedia:INDYWikipedia:WEIGHTWikipedia:SynthesisNews MediaWikipedia:ShortcutWikipedia:Identifying And Using Primary And Secondary SourcesWikipedia:Original Research By SynthesisWikipedia:OROpen ResearchWikipedia:RecentismWikipedia:WEIGHTRandomized Clinical TrialPubMed IdentifierPubMed IdentifierReproducibilityRetracted Article On Dopaminergic Neurotoxicity Of MDMASchön ScandalWikipedia:ShortcutScientific JournalsPeer ReviewMartin RimmSokal AffairWikipedia:Neutral Point Of ViewWikipedia:No Original ResearchConsensus (medical)Scientific ConsensusReview ArticleMedical GuidelineEuropean Society Of CardiologyInfectious Disease Society Of AmericaAHRQUSPSTFNICEWHOMonographWikipedia:ShortcutWikipedia:DUEEvidence-based MedicineLevels Of EvidenceSystematic ReviewAnecdotal EvidenceMedical GuidelineProcter & GambleState University Of New YorkMeta-analysesRandomized Controlled TrialQuasi-experimentObservational StudyCohort StudiesCase ControlCross-sectional StudyCorrelationEcological StudyRetrospectiveWikipedia:CRYSTALClinical TrialLevels Of EvidenceWikipedia:ShortcutIn VitroCherry Picking (fallacy)Wikipedia:ShortcutWikipedia:RecentismGeneticsOn The Origin Of SpeciesCochrane LibraryWikipedia:ShortcutWikipedia:Third-party SourcesWikipedia:FRINGEWikipedia:NWikipedia:ShortcutWikipedia:MEDASSESSWikipedia:Conflicts Of Interest (medicine)Wikipedia:ShortcutEnlargeWikipedia:NOTHEREWikipedia:COIWikipedia:AFCEnlargePLoS MedicineOpen Access JournalCreative Commons LicenseWikimedia CommonsWikipedia:Image Use PolicyWikipedia:ShortcutFUTON BiasWikipedia:PAYWALLJournal Of The American Medical AssociationPLoS MedicinePublic DomainMorbidity And Mortality Weekly ReportCenters For Disease Control And PreventionWikipedia:ShortcutWikipedia:RXWikipedia Talk:MEDCitation ImpactNarrative ReviewMedical GuidelineReproducibleInternational Standard Serial NumberWikipedia:CITEMEDJournal Of Medical BiographyMedical HypothesesIndex MedicusWikipedia:Identifying Reliable Sources (medicine)New England Journal Of MedicineThe LancetJournal Of The American Medical AssociationAnnals Of Internal MedicineThe BMJCanadian Medical Association JournalNature (journal)Science (journal)Cell (journal)Wikipedia:SOURCEPredatory Open Access PublishingWikipedia:RSMEDLINEUrologyJeffrey BeallWikipedia:ShortcutElsevierSpringer VerlagWolters KluwerInformaWikipedia:SELFPUBVanity PressUniversity PressNational Academy Of SciencesWikipedia:ShortcutWikipedia:WEIGHTWikipedia:Original ResearchWikipedia:WEASELEnlargeU.S. National AcademiesNational Academy Of MedicineUnited States National Academy Of SciencesNational Health ServiceNational Institutes Of HealthCenters For Disease Control And PreventionWorld Health OrganizationHealth Technology AssessmentsWikipedia:ShortcutMedical JournalismWikipedia:PRIMARYNEWSTemplate:Cite JournalNew ScientistScientific AmericanWikipedia:VWikipedia:RSAmerican Journal Of Public HealthColumbia Journalism ReviewEnlargeWikipedia:REDFLAGWebMDUpToDateEMedicineWikipedia:ShortcutSearch EnginePubMedMEDLINENational Library Of MedicineU.S. National Institutes Of HealthMeta-analysesPubMed CentralLetter To The EditorImpact FactorWikipedia:Scholarly JournalTemplate:MedcnTemplate:McnTemplate:MedrsTemplate:UmsTemplate:Primary Source-inlineTemplate:NpsnWikipedia:No Original ResearchTemplate:RSPleaseTemplate:MedrefTemplate:Reliable Sources For Medical ArticlesWikipedia:Reliable Source ExamplesWikipedia:Conflicts Of Interest (medicine)Wikipedia:Identifying Reliable Sources (natural Sciences)Wikipedia:Why MEDRS?Users' Guides To The Medical LiteratureWikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-30/DispatchesUser:TimVickersJournal Of The American Medical Informatics AssociationDigital Object IdentifierPubMed CentralPubMed IdentifierCirculation (journal)Digital Object IdentifierInternational Standard Serial NumberPubMed CentralPubMed IdentifierNature (journal)Digital Object IdentifierDigital Object IdentifierDigital Object IdentifierPubMed IdentifierInternational Standard Book NumberSpecial:BookSources/0443074445International Standard Book NumberSpecial:BookSources/0443074445BMJPubMed CentralPubMed IdentifierNature Clinical Practice Gastroenterology & HepatologyDigital Object IdentifierPubMed IdentifierAnnals Of Internal MedicineDigital Object IdentifierPubMed IdentifierJournal Of The Medical Library AssociationPubMed CentralPubMed IdentifierPublic Understanding Of ScienceDigital Object IdentifierPLoS MedDigital Object IdentifierPubMed CentralPubMed IdentifierThe New England Journal Of MedicineDigital Object IdentifierPubMed IdentifierPubMed IdentifierDigital Object IdentifierPubMed IdentifierPubMed CentralPubMed IdentifierLearned PublishingDigital Object IdentifierInternational Standard Book NumberSpecial:BookSources/1405139765PubMed CentralPubMed IdentifierPubMed CentralPubMed IdentifierPubMed CentralPubMed IdentifierPubMed CentralPubMed IdentifierPubMed CentralPubMed IdentifierPubMed CentralPubMed IdentifierPubMed CentralPubMed IdentifierPubMed CentralPubMed IdentifierInternational Standard Book NumberSpecial:BookSources/0443074445International Standard Book NumberSpecial:BookSources/978-1591587941International Standard Book NumberSpecial:BookSources/978-1449618681International Standard Book NumberSpecial:BookSources/978-0443101236Help:CategoryCategory:Wikipedia Content GuidelinesCategory:Wikipedia Reliable SourcesCategory:Wikipedia SourcesCategory:Pages With DOIs Inactive Since 2018Discussion About Edits From This IP Address [n]A List Of Edits Made From This IP Address [y]View The Project Page [c]Discussion About The Content Page [t]Edit This Page [e]Visit The Main Page [z]Guides To Browsing WikipediaFeatured Content – The Best Of WikipediaFind Background Information On Current EventsLoad A Random Article [x]Guidance On How To Use And Edit WikipediaFind Out About WikipediaAbout The Project, What You Can Do, Where To Find ThingsA List Of Recent Changes In The Wiki [r]List Of All English Wikipedia Pages Containing Links To This Page [j]Recent Changes In Pages Linked From This Page [k]Upload Files [u]A List Of All Special Pages [q]Wikipedia:AboutWikipedia:General Disclaimer



view link view link view link view link view link