ウィキペディア:信頼できる情報源の特定(医学)

ウィキペディアから、無料の百科事典
ナビゲーションにジャンプ 検索にジャンプ

生物医学情報は、信頼できるサードパーティが公開した二次資料基づいている必要があり、現在の知識を正確に反映している必要があります。このガイドラインはサポート、一般的な調達政策の医療コンテンツに適しているものに、特定の注意を払ってのいずれかの上のものを含め、Wikipediaの記事代替医療。医学記事の非医学情報を含む他のすべてのタイプのコンテンツの調達は、信頼できる情報源特定するための一般的なガイドラインでカバーされています

生物医学情報のための理想的なソースが含まれます:総説(特に系統的レビュー評判に発表された)医学雑誌を。関連分野の専門家や著名な出版社から書かれた学術書や専門書。およびガイドラインや国内または国際専門機関からの位置文。一次資料は通常、医療コンテンツには使用しないでください。そのような情報源には、信頼できない情報や予備的な情報が含まれることがよくあります。たとえば、後の臨床試験では保持されない初期の検査結果などです

特定の情報源の信頼性に関する質問については、信頼できる情報源の掲示板参照してくださいまた、ウィキプロジェクト医学ウィキプロジェクト薬理学などのウィキプロジェクトで気軽に質問してください

定義

ソースの種類

生物医学文献:

  • 次資料は、著者が直接研究に参加し、彼らの個人的な経験を文書化したものです。彼らは患者を診察したり、ラットに注射したり、実験を行ったり、行った人を監督したりしました。医学雑誌に掲載された多くの論文は、行われた研究と発見に関する事実の主要な情報源です。
  • 二次ソースは、トピックの現在の理解の概要を提供するために、勧告を行うために、または1つ以上の一次または二次情報源まとめた結果組み合わせいくつかの研究のを。例としては、医学雑誌、専門の学術書または専門書に見られる文献レビューまたは系統的レビュー、および主要な保健機関によって発行された医療ガイドラインまたは意見書が含まれます。
  • 三次資料は、二次情報源の範囲をまとめたものです。学部または大学院レベルの教科書、編集された科学書、一般の科学書、および百科事典は三次資料です。

Wikipediaのポリシーに従って中立的な観点無独自の研究、および検証可能性、記事は、信頼性に基づいてする必要が独立して出版され、二次または三次情報源。生物医学的コンテンツについては、ウィキペディアコミュニティは、専門家の科学的レビューや教科書、および主要な医学的および科学的機関によって発行された公式声明に含まれるガイダンスに依存しています。一般的なニュースメディアの健康関連コンテンツは、通常、ウィキペディアの記事の生物医学コンテンツを調達するために使用されるべきではないことに注意してください。 (ニュースソースは、「社会と文化」に関する情報など、非生物医学的コンテンツに役立つ場合があります。を参照してください。WP:MEDPOP。)

一次資料は通常、生物医学的内容の基礎として使用されるべきではありません。これは、一次生物医学文献が探索的であり、信頼できないことが多いためです(特定の一次資料が他の資料と矛盾する可能性があります)。一次資料に依存するテキストは通常​​、最小限の重みを持ち、情報源によってなされた結論のみを説明し、専門知識を必要とせずに編集者が調達を確認できるようにこれらの調査結果を明確に説明する必要があります。著者によって明確にされていない結論を支持するために一次資料を引用してはなりません( WP:Synthesisを参照)。

生物医学v。一般情報

生物医学情報には、このガイドラインに準拠したMEDRSソーシングが必要ですが、同じ記事の一般情報には準拠していない場合があります。

たとえば、フォスター博士のマジックパープルピルに関する記事には、生物医学的主張と非生物医学的主張の両方が含まれている可能性があります。

  • フォスター博士の錠剤はすべてを治します。 生物医学的主張!ここでは強力なMEDRSソーシングが絶対に必要です(WP:MEDASSESSを参照
  • ピルはアーチボルドフォスター博士によって発明され、2015年に市場にリリースされました。 これは生物医学情報なく、通常のRSのみが必要です。
  • それらは紫色と三角形で、1つを箱に詰めて[要出典] 、誰も2つ目を飲み込むことができません。[医学的引用が必要]

基本的なアドバイス

二次資料を尊重する

一次資料は、二次資料による結論を「暴く」、矛盾する、または反論する目的で引用されるべきではありません。ポジションを前進させる出版物の統合独自の研究であり、ウィキペディアは公開研究の場ではありません。医学における論争や不確実性は、さまざまな視点を説明する信頼できる二次資料によって裏付けられるべきです。一次資料は、分野における意見の比例代表を弱体化させるために、文脈なしに集約または提示されるべきではありません。資料が一次資料または二次資料のいずれかでサポートできる場合は、二次資料を使用する必要があります。一次資料は二次資料と一緒に提示される場合があります。

科学界が結果を分析してコメントする前に、一次研究が報告されるとすぐに、調査結果はしばしば人気のある報道機関で宣伝されます。したがって、そのような情報源は一般的に省略されるべきです(最近主義を参照)。研究の重み決定 するには、信頼できる二次資料が必要です(そのような資料に基づくプレスリリースや新聞記事ではありません)。結論に言及する価値がある場合(驚くべき結果を伴う大規模なランダム化臨床試験など)、それらは単一の研究からのものとして適切に説明する必要があります。

「2010年に発表されたNIHが資金提供した大規模な研究では、セレンとビタミンEのサプリメントは、別々に、または一緒に、前立腺がんになるリスクを低下させず、ビタミンEがリスクを高める可能性があることがわかりました。以前は前立腺を予防すると考えられていました。癌。" PMID  20924966を引用

与えられた時間にレビューが公開され、一次資料はできればレビューに置き換える必要があります。次に、二次資料を使用することで、事実をより信頼性の高い方法で述べることができます。

「ビタミンEもセレンも前立腺がんのリスクを低下させることはなく、ビタミンEはそれを増加させる可能性があります。」PMID 29376219 PMID 26957512を引用  

妥当な時間内にその主題に関するレビューが公開されない場合は、コンテンツと一次資料を削除する必要があります。

生物医学分野の一次資料、特にin vitro実験の結果を報告する論文を避ける理由は、それらが複製できないことが多く[1] [2] [3]、したがって百科事典的で信頼できる生物医学コンテンツの生成に使用するには不適切であるためです。バイエルの科学者は2011年に、調査した著名な研究の約20〜25%で結果を再現できたと報告しました。[4]アムジェンの科学者は、2012年の出版物に続いて、53の影響力のある出版物のうち6つ(11%)しか複製できなかったことを示し、科学出版物のより高い基準を求めました。[5]さらに、クレームが査読付きジャーナルに掲載されているという事実は、それを真実にする必要はありません。適切に設計されたランダム化実験でさえ、誤った結果をもたらすことがあります。実験や研究は、欠陥のある結果を生み出す可能性があり、意図的な詐欺の犠牲になることさえあります(例えばMDMAのドーパミン作動性神経毒性シェーンスキャンダルに関する撤回された記事)。

科学的コンセンサスを要約する

科学雑誌は、一次資料と二次資料の両方を見つけるのに最適な場所です。すべての厳密な科学ジャーナルは査読されます。査読のないジャーナルに掲載された資料や、主に他の分野の資料を報告している資料には注意してください。 (参照:Martin Rimm。)評判の悪いジャーナルや評判の悪い分野に掲載されている資料には注意してください。 (参照:ソーカル事件。)

中立的な観点に関するウィキペディアのポリシーであり、元の研究を公開ないことは、主要な専門医学または科学学会によって発行された声明および実践ガイドラインで最近の権威ある総説に見られる一般的な医学的または科学的コンセンサスを提示することを要求します(たとえば、欧州心臓病学会または米国感染症学会)および広く尊敬されている政府および準政府の保健当局(AHRQUSPSTFNICEWHOなど))、教科書、または学術論文で重要な少数派の見解はウィキペディアで歓迎されていますが、そのような見解は、この分野の専門家による受け入れの文脈で提示されなければなりません。さらに、ごく少数の意見を報告する必要はありません。

最後に、信頼できる情報源に記載されている論争を読者に認識させます。よく参照されている記事は、特定の研究者によって提案された特定のジャーナル記事または特定の理論を指します。

エビデンスの質を評価する

健康への影響について書くとき、エビデンスの質を評価することは、マイナーな見解とメジャーな見解を区別し、正当な重みを決定、受け入れられたエビデンスに基づく情報を特定するのに役立ちます。評判の良い医学雑誌でさえ、異なる論文は同じ重みを与えられていません。研究は、証拠のレベルに分類することができ[6]と編集者は、次のような高レベルのエビデンスに頼るべきで系統的レビュー。低レベルの証拠(症例報告シリーズなど)または非証拠(逸話や従来の知識など)は回避されます。医療ガイドラインまたは、国際的または国内的に認められた専門家団体による見解声明にも、基礎となる証拠の評価とともに、推奨事項が含まれていることがよくあります(WP:MEDORGを参照)。

医学におけるエビデンスのレベルをランク付けする方法はいくつかありますが、同様に、高レベルのレビューと実践ガイドラインを最上位に置いています。

治療およびその他の健康介入の有効性に関する最良の証拠は、主ランダム化比較試験(RCT)のメタアナリシスからのものです。[10]ランダム化されていない研究を含む文献の系統的レビューは信頼性が低い。[11]ナラティブレビューは、エビデンスの質の文脈を確立するのに役立ちます。

医学研究におけるより低いレベルの証拠は、一次研究から来ていますWP:MEDDEFを参照)。大まかに降順で、これらには以下が含まれます:個々のRCT。準実験的研究;前向きコホート研究縦断研究の一種)などの前向き 観察(非実験)研究ケースコントロール研究;横断的研究(調査)、および生態学的研究などの他の相関研究;その他の遡及的分析(遡及的コホート研究を含む));エビデンスに基づかない専門家の意見または臨床経験。症例報告とシリーズは管理されていないため、特に避けられます。

投機的な提案や初期段階の研究は、広く受け入れられていることを意味するものとして引用されるべきではありません。たとえば、初期段階の臨床試験の結果は、将来の治療が現在の診療にほとんど関係がないため、疾患記事の「治療」セクションでは適切ではありません。結果は、場合によっては、問題の治療、またはそれに関与する研究者や企業に特化した記事に含めるのに適している可能性があります。このような情報は、特に二次資料を引用する場合、疾患記事の研究セクションで適切である可能性があります。誤解を防ぐために、テキストは引用された研究のレベルを明確に特定する必要があります(例:「人間初の安全性試験」)。

医学的主題に関して入手可能なエビデンスの質を評価するためのいくつかの正式なシステムが存在します。[12] [13]ここで、「証拠の質を評価する」とは、本質的に、編集者が適切な種類の情報源出版物の質を決定する必要があることを意味します。証拠のレベルを尊重する:包含基準に対する個人的な反対のために、より低いレベルの証拠(例えば、一次情報源)からの情報源を支持して、高レベルの種類の情報源(例えば、メタアナリシス)を拒否しないでください。参照、資金源、または上位レベルの情報源の結論。編集者は、詳細な学術的査読を行うべきではありません。

単一の研究、特にinvitroまたは動物研究を強調しすぎないようにしてください

インビトロ研究および動物モデルは、研究において中心的な役割を果たし、機構的経路を決定し、仮説を立てる上で非常に貴重です。ただし、 invitroおよび動物モデルの調査結果は一貫して人間の臨床効果に変換されません。どこにin vitroで動物モデルデータウィキペディアに引用されている、それはデータが前臨床あることを読者には明らかであるべきであり、記事のテキストが明記や報告の知見は、ヒトにおいても当てはまることを意味することは避けてください。仮説に対する支持のレベルは、読者に明白でなければなりません。

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

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. For instance, 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 and NICE guidelines are generally of high quality and are periodically re-examined 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

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.

Symposia and supplements to academic journals are commonly sponsored by industry groups with a financial interest in the outcome of the research reported. They may lack independent editorial oversight and peer review with no supervision of content by the parent journal.[14] Such articles do not share the reliability of their parent journal.[15] Indications that an article was published in a supplement may be fairly subtle; for instance, a letter "s" added to a page number,[16] or "Suppl." in a reference.

Bias

Bias caused by conflicts of interest is an important issue in medical research. It arises in part due to financial interests that compete within medicine. Disclosure of conflicts of interest is mandated, but isn't always done – and even when it is may not be helpful. A source can also simply be bad, where biases in criteria make it less than ideal. Claims of bias should not be made lightly – if you simply call out results as biased, you may introduce your own bias. Claims of bias should be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and are not reason to omit sources without consensus – instead, qualify sources with information of why a source may be biased, and who is calling it biased.

Obvious or overt bias in a source is a difficult problem for Wikipedia. If there is consensus on an article that a certain source should be omitted for bias, it may be excluded. It may be 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

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 guideline – 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

Montage with central stripe reading "PLoS MEDICINE". Other images are orange segments, a woman in a blue shawl carrying a food package labeled "USA", a pregnant woman holding hands with a child, a hand holding several different pills over a lap covered by a colorful dress, patients in a hospital, and pills on a leaf.
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

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

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, and may not represent the article's actual conclusions.[17] 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

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. Primary publications describe new research, 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. In addition to experiments, primary sources 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[18] and typically less 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.

Broadly speaking, reviews may be narrative or systematic (and sometimes both). Narrative reviews provide a general summary of a topic based on a survey of the literature, which can be useful when outlining a topic. 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. 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. 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.[12] 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). It is normally best to use reviews and meta-analyses where possible. Reviews give a balanced and general perspective of a topic, and are usually easier to understand. 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.

List of core journals

The Abridged Index Medicus provides a list of 114 selected "core clinical journals".[19] Another useful grouping of core medical journals is the 2003 Brandon/Hill list, which includes 141 publications selected for a small medical library[20] (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

Avoid articles from journals with a poor reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. A journal article is probably not reliable for biomedical claims if its publisher 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.[21][22]) Other indications that a journal article may not be reliable are its publication in a journal that is not indexed in the bibliographic database MEDLINE,[23] 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.

An archive of Beall's List, an early list of potentially predatory journals, can be found at https://beallslist.net; updates are added separately by an anonymous post-doctoral researcher. On Wikipedia, the CiteWatch compilation (updated twice monthly) and the Unreliable/Predatory Source Detector script can be leveraged to facilitate the detection of predatory journals.

Symposia and supplements to academic journals are often (but far from always) unacceptable sources. They are commonly sponsored by industry groups with a financial interest in the outcome of the research reported. They may lack independent editorial oversight and peer review, with no supervision of content by the parent journal.[14] Such shill articles do not share the reliability of their parent journal,[15] being essentially paid ads disguised as academic articles. Such supplements, and those that do not clearly declare their editorial policy and conflicts of interest, should not be cited.

Indications that an article was published in a supplement may be fairly subtle; for instance, a letter "S" added to a page number,[24] or "Suppl." in a reference.[25] However, note that merely being published in a supplement is not prima facie evidence of being published in a sponsored supplement. Many, if not most, supplements are perfectly legitimate sources, such as the Astronomy & Astrophysics Supplement Series, Nuclear Physics B: Proceedings Supplements, Supplement to the London Gazette, or The Times Higher Education Supplement. A sponsored supplement need not necessarily have a COI with its medical content; for instance, public health agencies may also sponsor supplements. However, groups that do have a COI may hide behind layers of front organizations with innocuous names, so the ultimate funding sources should always be ascertained.

Books

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.[26] 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

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).

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.

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.
* 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

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,[27] costs, and risks versus benefits,[28] and news articles too often convey wrong or misleading information about health care.[29] Articles in newspapers and popular magazines 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.[30] 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 |lay-url= 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[dead link] or Health News Review 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[31] can help to get a general idea of the quality of a medical news article.

Other sources

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.[32] 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. Medical information resources such as WebMD and eMedicine are usually acceptable sources for uncontroversial information; however, as much as possible Wikipedia articles should cite the more established literature directly. UpToDate is less preferred as it is not possible to reference specific versions of their articles, archives do not exist, and it can be difficult to access.

Searching for sources

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.[33] PubMed can be searched in a variety of ways.[34][35] For example, clicking on the "Review" tab will help narrow the search to review articles. The "Filters" options can further narrow the search, for example, to meta-analyses, to practice guidelines, and/or to freely readable sources. 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.[36]

When looking at an individual abstract on the PubMed website, an editor can consult "Publication Types", "MeSH Terms", etc. at the bottom of the page to see how the document has been classified in PubMed. For example, a page that is tagged as "Comment" or "Letter" is a letter to the editor (often not peer-reviewed). The classification scheme includes about 80 types of documents.[37] 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 on DOAJ and other databases as well as the status and publishing track of authors if they make extraordinary claims. There is no magic number, but it is useful to compare the authors to others' in the same field of study.

Templates

See also

References

  1. ^ Loscalzo J (March 2012). "Irreproducible experimental results: causes, (mis)interpretations, and consequences". Circulation. 125 (10): 1211–4. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.112.098244. PMC 3319669. PMID 22412087.
  2. ^ Naik G (December 2, 2011). "Scientists' Elusive Goal: Reproducing Study Results". Wall Street Journal.
  3. ^ Nature's Challenges in Reproducibility initiative
  4. ^ Prinz F, Schlange T, Asadullah K (August 2011). "Believe it or not: how much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets?". Nature Reviews. Drug Discovery. 10 (9): 712. doi:10.1038/nrd3439-c1. PMID 21892149.
  5. ^ Begley CG, Ellis LM (March 2012). "Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research". Nature. 483 (7391): 531–3. Bibcode:2012Natur.483..531B. doi:10.1038/483531a. PMID 22460880.
  6. ^ Wright JG (May 2007). "A practical guide to assigning levels of evidence". The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. American Volume. 89 (5): 1128–30. doi:10.2106/JBJS.F.01380. PMID 17473152.
  7. ^ "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.
  8. ^ "SUNY Downstate EBM Tutorial". library.downstate.edu. Retrieved 2015-09-03.
  9. ^ "The Journey of Research - Levels of Evidence | CAPhO". www.capho.org. Retrieved 2015-09-03.
  10. ^ 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 978-0443074448.
  11. ^ 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 978-0443074448.
  12. ^ a b Greenhalgh T (September 1997). "Papers that summarise other papers (systematic reviews and meta-analyses)" (PDF). BMJ. 315 (7109): 672–5. doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7109.672. PMC 2127461. PMID 9310574.
  13. ^ Young JM, Solomon MJ (February 2009). "How to critically appraise an article". Nature Clinical Practice. Gastroenterology & Hepatology. 6 (2): 82–91. doi:10.1038/ncpgasthep1331. PMID 19153565.
  14. ^ a b Fees F (2016), Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work in medical journals (PDF), archived (PDF) from the original on 2014-03-05, retrieved 2019-01-12 Conflicts-of-interest section Archived 2018-12-30 at the Wayback Machine, [Last update on 2015 Dec].
  15. ^ a b Rochon PA, Gurwitz JH, Cheung CM, Hayes JA, Chalmers TC (July 1994). "Evaluating the quality of articles published in journal supplements compared with the quality of those published in the parent journal". JAMA. 272 (2): 108–13. doi:10.1001/jama.1994.03520020034009. PMID 8015117.
  16. ^ Nestle M (October 2001). "Food company sponsorship of nutrition research and professional activities: a conflict of interest?" (PDF). Public Health Nutrition. 4 (5): 1015–22. doi:10.1079/PHN2001253. PMID 11784415.
  17. ^ Li G, Abbade LP, Nwosu I, Jin Y, Leenus A, Maaz M, Wang M, Bhatt M, Zielinski L, Sanger N, Bantoto B, Luo C, Shams I, Shahid H, Chang Y, Sun G, Mbuagbaw L, Samaan Z, Levine MA, Adachi JD, Thabane L (December 2017). "A scoping review of comparisons between abstracts and full reports in primary biomedical research". BMC Medical Research Methodology. 17 (1): 181. doi:10.1186/s12874-017-0459-5. PMC 5747940. PMID 29287585.
  18. ^ Robinson KA, Goodman SN (January 2011). "A systematic examination of the citation of prior research in reports of randomized, controlled trials". Annals of Internal Medicine. 154 (1): 50–5. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-154-1-201101040-00007. PMID 21200038.
  19. ^ "Abridged Index Medicus (AIM or "Core Clinical") Journal Titles". NLM. Retrieved 17 November 2012.
  20. ^ 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.
  21. ^ Beall J (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) (Report). Gezaghebbende Panel.
  22. ^ Beall J (31 December 2016). "Potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open-access publishers". Archived from the original on 17 January 2017.
  23. ^ 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.
  24. ^ Nestle M (2 January 2007). "Food company sponsorship of nutrition research and professional activities: a conflict of interest?" (PDF). Public Health Nutrition. 4 (5): 1015–1022. doi:10.1079/PHN2001253. PMID 11784415. Archived (PDF) from the original on 17 November 2018. Retrieved 12 January 2019.
  25. ^ See this discussion of how to identify shill academic articles cited in Wikipedia.
  26. ^ Shedlock J, Walton LJ (January 2006). "Developing a virtual community for health sciences library book selection: Doody's Core Titles". Journal of the Medical Library Association. 94 (1): 61–6. PMC 1324773. PMID 16404471.
  27. ^ Cooper BE, Lee WE, Goldacre BM, Sanders TA (August 2012). "The quality of the evidence for dietary advice given in UK national newspapers". Public Understanding of Science. 21 (6): 664–73. doi:10.1177/0963662511401782. PMID 23832153. Lay summaryThe Guardian.
  28. ^ Schwitzer G (May 2008). "How do US journalists cover treatments, tests, products, and procedures? An evaluation of 500 stories". PLOS Medicine. 5 (5): e95. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0050095. PMC 2689661. PMID 18507496. Lay summaryGuardian (2008-06-21).
  29. ^ Dentzer S (January 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.
  30. ^ Woloshin S, Schwartz LM, Casella SL, Kennedy AT, Larson RJ (May 2009). "Press releases by academic medical centers: not so academic?". Annals of Internal Medicine. 150 (9): 613–8. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-150-9-200905050-00007. PMID 19414840.
  31. ^ "How we rate stories". Health News Review. 2008. Archived from the original on 2012-07-23. Retrieved 2009-03-26.
  32. ^ Rosmarakis ES, Soteriades ES, Vergidis PI, Kasiakou SK, Falagas ME (May 2005). "From conference abstract to full paper: differences between data presented in conferences and journals". FASEB Journal. 19 (7): 673–80. doi:10.1096/fj.04-3140lfe. PMID 15857882.
  33. ^ Greenhalgh T (July 1997). "How to read a paper. The Medline database". BMJ. 315 (7101): 180–3. doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7101.180. PMC 2127107. PMID 9251552.
  34. ^ "PubMed User Guide". PubMed. Retrieved 14 May 2021.
  35. ^ "PubMed tutorial: filters". NLM. Retrieved 17 November 2012.
  36. ^ 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.
  37. ^ "PubMed: Publication Types". NLM. Retrieved 29 January 2020.

Further reading