Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)/Archive 28

I’m sorry if that isn’t all puppies and kittens. It’s never going to be. You might as well ask a black guy who has just been subject to an unjustified traffic stop, to write down three ways in which they appreciate Highway Patrolmen, and then draw a rainbow. That’s not going to work. SBHarris 02:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

So, what is your suggested solution?

Thanks for your question. "work with the stamp of approval by advocacy organizations" are not OK per MEDRS.

No, news organizations are not OK for WP:Biomedical information. They often get the news wrong in typical ways, like sensationalizing them, failing to state how far from the clinical the work actually is, etc. I commend to you https://www.healthnewsreview.org/ which does a very good job of critiquing mainstream news coverage driven by press releases promoting scientific papers. Jytdog (talk) 23:36, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the feedback! So helpful to know about the news articles. For the advocacy organizations, this seems to conflict with some information I received here previously. This document, which we call "Evidence Updates," is what I'm referring to: Evidence Update for Clinicians You can see another one, written for patients here Again, thanks so much for your help

talk

) 13:22, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

"Advocacy organization" is very broad and would include groups like ILADS and oh, groups that advocate for Electromagnetic hypersensitivity to be treated as a real thing. Right? We discussed PCORI here and there was some consensus to use their guides, in places where they are trying to summarize accepted knowledge. We actually discussed the prostate cancer one in that discussion, and I found that one useful for the guideline-summarizing and somewhat alarming for its emphasis on the recent clinical trial results... and Doc James sort of acknowledged that. Jytdog (talk) 14:36, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Again, thank you. I really appreciate you holding my hand through this.

talk

) 15:31, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

It is recognized that the methodology, validity and reliability of psychological studies is poor in comparison to biomedical studies, and that from the scientific perspective, psychology is the poor cousin of biomedical science. Academic psychologist Professor Brian Hughes has just published a book "Psychology in Crisis" about the way flawed research prospers so freely in modern psychology.

Thus this leads to considerations regarding a change of the rules for Wikipedia medical: when a psychological study and a biomedical study present differing or contradictory theories on the etiology of a disease or medical circumstance, at present these two studies are considered of equal validity; but one needs to question whether in these cases the biomedical research should be give precedence over the psychological study, just as secondary sources are given precedence over primary sources.

Until such time in the future that psychology and psychiatry get their act together and become rigorous sciences with a validity and reliability comparable to that of biomedical research, to me it makes sense that psychological studies in Wikipedia should not be given the same weight as biomedical papers. Wikipedia medical always rigorously adopts the highest standards of scientific evidence, so for that reason, Wikipedia should not give undue weight to psychological papers, whose methodology is often flawed and unreliable. It does not matter whether the psychological source is secondary or tertiary, because the primary studies themselves are often poor and unreliable.

Thus my suggestion is to consider a new Wikipedia medical rule that would state something along the lines of:

No psychological source, even if it is secondary or tertiary, should be able to "trump" a biomedical study. When a psychological study and a biomedical study provide differing views, the biomedical perspective should be given precedence. Hip-IV (talk) 04:26, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

No. (That's my answer to your question.) // You need to cite many more sources, including some that examine problems with biomedical research publications, before I would even begin to consider your proposal. // One of the things I like about WP:MED is members' respect for, and support of, Wikipedians from non-medical (but related) disciplines such as clinical psychology. It would be a shame if this WikiProject engaged in pointless, juvenile, inane condescension toward other academic disciplines deemed inferior to biomedical sciences.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 06:34, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

It's not a case of condescension, it's a case of the harm that flawed psychological research does. A good example is the damage that the psychological theory that myalgic encephalomyelitis / chronic fatigue syndrome is an "all in the mind" disease caused by the patient's own belief system (ie, psychogenic/somatoform theory of ME/CFS). This theory has no basis in empirical fact, yet it is widely used to treat ME/CFS, and causes a lot of harm for various reasons, not the least of which is the reporting of parents of children with ME/CFS to the authorities for encouraging their child to believe that he or she has ME/CFS, which then, according to these crazy psychologists, maintains the disease condition. Hip-IV (talk) 22:50, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Here is good recent article by psychologist Prof David F. Marks on how psychology merely apes proper science, and also details the harm done when psychological theories of disease are given precedence over biomedical theories:Psychology – Science or Delusion? Psychology is a subject I love, and the fact that is does not often meet the criteria for being a science is part of its virtue: great novels and literature are not a science either, but that does not mean you cannot learn a great deal about life and you own self from reading novels. So I have no qualms with psychology in general, just concern about the situation when when psychology runs up against biomedical understandings of physical and mental diseases, where I suggest biomedical understandings should be given priority in Wikipedia. Hip-IV (talk) 12:01, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

I am interested in getting feedback on https://www.cagc-accg.ca/?page=110 as a source for background info. It has been recommended by a clinician in the field, but there do not appear to be references in their information articles (link above). Thank you!! JenOttawa (talk) 00:05, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

As a thought: A source is reliable per Wikipedia and specifically per MEDRS dependent on what specific content needs the support of a reference. So whether the source is reliable depends very much on the content you want to source.(Littleolive oil (talk) 03:57, 6 October 2018 (UTC))

Hi, I came across this draft while going through the

I had a disagreement with another contributor on the pertinence of some sources. The sources are systematic reviews on clinical trials (on humans), published by notable publishers. For this, no disagreement. But the disagreement comes from the fact that these reviews are made on not enough patients (we talk here about hundreds when doing the total over all reviewed trials). The context is that this is pertaining to "innovative" fields, in the sense that there is not as much interest (and thus funding or patients) as in others like Alzheimer. In my opinion, this context should be taken into account, and if all other reliability factors are greenlight, the source is admissible. But the other contributor has the opposite view . I checked MEDRS and found no mention of accounting for the number of patients. Here is an example source where we disagreed: [4]. Also, to add a bit more context, the goal was to say that "to date, this compound has shown no significantly beneficial effect", which is a non extraordinary claim (negative result). So, should the number of patients be accounted? Thank you in advance for your advices/thoughts! --Signimu (talk) 21:54, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

You can have strong evidence of an effect from a small numbe of patients if the effect size is large. The harder thing to do is to interpret negative results based on a small number of trials/patients. It makes sense to me to be guided by the wording in the systematic review being referenced. Bondegezou (talk) 23:53, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

@Bondegezou: Thank you very much for your reply! How would you define "small number of trials/patients" in the case of negative results? Or should I just use the systematic review wording, in order to avoid any personal interpretation of "small"? --Signimu (talk) 02:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Generally safest to stick to the systematic review's own wording, so as to avoid

WP:OR. Bondegezou (talk

) 13:27, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Riffstilde (talk) 15:35, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Your number 1 just needs RS as it is primarily about regulation ("society and culture" stuff). Your #2 needs MEDRS, as it is biomedical information. See WP:Biomedical information. There is a link to it in this guideline. Jytdog (talk) 15:40, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I just added the link to WP:Biomedical information after reading your reply. Riffstilde (talk) 16:41, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

It was already there. Please slow down and read more carefully. You are wasting everyone's time, including your own. Jytdog (talk) 16:46, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello Jytdog, I am sure you are right and the link is somewhere on the page. I could not find it and I still cannot find it. This is why I added it where I feel it belongs to, which is where I looked for the information when I read and reread the page. I believe it will save people time to have the info where they need it. I believe it would be good if you side stepped a little and let a day or 2 pass before you jump on any modifications : people take time to think and prepare their edits (In my case I had studied this for a couple hours). They need to feel respected , and they may not be as wrong as it may seem at first. So, I will put this stuff back on, and please take some time to consider it. It tries to solve an issue. Maybe you have a better way to solve the issue. The issue is that what is and what is not biomedical info can only be found in another page, but this is not indicated in this page introduction. That's why I feel it needs to be part of the introduction. Riffstilde (talk) 17:08, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

It there in the lead already, in the second sentence. Please read more carefully. Jytdog (talk) 17:34, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. You are right, but I still think it needs to be in the text because that's where it belongs to (when reading the paragraph, you can ask yourself how to define medical content, and you will not figure out that the answer is actually in another page about biomedical info, not about medical info):

"Wikipedia's articles are not medical advice, but are widely used as a source for health information.[1] For this reason, all biomedical information must be based on reliable, third-party published secondary sources, and must accurately reflect current knowledge. This guideline supports the general sourcing policy with specific attention to what is appropriate for medical content in any Wikipedia article, including those on alternative medicine. Sourcing for all other types of content – including non-medical information in medicine-articles – is covered by the general guideline on identifying reliable sources. In case of doubt about whether an information is to be treated as (bio)medical, check WP:biomedical information." Riffstilde (talk) 18:22, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

We use "biomedical" in relation to

talk

) 19:44, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Regarding this and this, I thought you had removed "biomedical." But regarding replacing "medical" with "biomedical," I feel that this could be used as a

talk

) 20:04, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

It is "in the text". The changes were not helpful. Please stop changing this and try to understand it first, instead. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:29, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I still find the beginning of the article confusing: I would like the meaning of medical content, medical information, non-medical information to be defined, or the wording simplified. I think my edits were rightly simplifying, but it was not in the purpose of replacing medical with biomedical. It was a purpose of simplifying to make the text unambiguous by eliminating medical content which I found excessively confusing. I also replaced medical by biomedical for another reason: I believed the 2 words had the same signification in the article. If you still keep biomedical information, medical content and medical information, it makes it not understandable what must and must not follow biomedical guidelines. How can you keep 2 different words: medical and biomedical and ask to refer to biomedical guidelines for both of them? What about medical content? What is it? Will you refer me to biomedical guidelines, as the article does? Riffstilde (talk) 12:45, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

The reason for this, is discussed in the archives of this page. Jytdog (talk) 12:48, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello Jytdog, (1) I am not seeing how your reply addresses my remark about removing ambiguity and poor wording. Whatever the policy expressed in the article, it must be stated clearly. (2) If you want to refer me to the archive, please indicate a precise reference. Thanks. Riffstilde (talk) 17:21, 9 October 2018 (UTC) ↓

→ Two points from my perspective: (1) This kind of language, particularly early in a discussion, is disrespectful: "Please slow down and read more carefully. You are wasting everyone's time, including your own." At a time when Wikipedia needs more good editors, tact, courtesy, and respect are much more important than being right.

(2) I agree with Riffstilde, who is simply trying to improve understanding for the average Wikipedia customer (visitor, consumer, reader). Those of you who have used (and helped improve) WP:MEDRS for years seem to (at times) forget that you know these issues inside and out, whereas the average Wikipedia reader (and editor) is encountering them for only the first or second time. Therefore, making it relatively easy for the average reader/editor to discover how we define "biomedical information" improves their understanding, makes them a better editor, and forestalls questions about the term on this Talk page and elsewhere.

I support Riffstilde's proposed edit:

Wikipedia's articles are not medical advice, but are widely used as a source for health information.[1] For this reason, all biomedical information must be based on reliable, third-party published secondary sources, and must accurately reflect current knowledge. This guideline supports the general sourcing policy with specific attention to what is appropriate for medical content in any Wikipedia article, including those on alternative medicine. Sourcing for all other types of content – including non-medical information in medicine-articles – is covered by the general guideline on identifying reliable sources. In case of doubt about whether an information is to be treated as (bio)medical, check WP:biomedical information.

  - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 17:40, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

P.S. When I write that I "support" Riffstilde's proposed edit, I do not mean to imply that I support their exact wording only, i.e., we might want to hash out precise wording that we agree on (consensus).   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 20:17, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

"Copying content under a compatible license requires a template under the correct license. Removing it for copied content under a compatible license will result in a copyright violation." When the content is written in your own words is not relevant to this discussion. This is for content that is not written in your own words for copied content under one of the various compatible licenses. It is also a good idea to add a template for content in the public domain. QuackGuru (talk) 09:44, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

It is an ongoing problem. Numerous editors think if the content is under an appropriate license they can copy the content without using one of the templates.

This is happening across numerous topics. Even for content in the public domain it is required to use a template to avoid plagiarism. QuackGuru (talk) 16:26, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Just because I was pinged by

Flyer22 Reborn

, popping in to say that I don't have any real strong opinion over whether this information is included in this guideline or not. It's included in several relevant policies, guidelines, and protocol pages, so I don't regard it as essential. Not all pages can or should include all information.

If it is included, I prefer the text as presented by [User:QuackGuru|QuackGuru]] just above - the starker "Removing the CC-notice for copyrighted content will result in a copyright violation." is misleading, at least by itself. The content remains copyrighted whether it is copied or properly paraphrased. When properly paraphrased, citation is necessary to avoid plagiarism, but the CC-notice is not. The language "Copying content under a compatible license requires a template under the correct license. Removing it for copied content under a compatible license will result in a copyright violation" is clearer. That said, again, I don't have a strong opinion. Perhaps some of the editors who work on these particular suite of guidance pages might be better at guiding consensus here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:50, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you,

talk

) 02:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

And just to be clear, I was asking about the accuracy of the "Removing the CC-notice for copyrighted content will result in a copyright violation." statement (even though my question above was about inclusion). You answered that.

talk

) 02:59, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

The content is accurate but doesn't belong here --

WP:OFFTOPIC. This guideline is WP:Not the kitchen sink... Jytdog (talk

) 09:37, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Would like to reach out to the project members here in re: this draft:

• Draft:Development and Wellbeing Assessment

I'm not sure if this is a suitable draft on a notable topic, or perhaps a form of advocacy. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:30, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Not bad for a newbie - I can see why you might think that it is advocacy but I think it is okay. Mentioned as a clinical tool with low bias in various NICE reports. CV9933 (talk) 11:30, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Steel1943, regarding the title format change, is it the standard title format in cases like this?

If you reply, please don't ping me since this page is on my watchlist.

• It's a type of standard format that allows easier navigation to
  Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources is ever renamed, since this page is now a subpage of the aforementioned page, if the aforementioned page is ever moved, administrators and page movers will be able to move this page at the same time, better preventing page name mismatches. This move is similar to what occurred with the subpages of "Wikipedia:Contact us" as a result of a recent move discussion. Steel1943 (talk
  ) 17:14, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

The reason I asked is because formats with the parentheses still exist for guideline subpages; one current example is

talk

) 21:32, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

@

Flyer22 Reborn: I’ve been giving this some thought, and I’m going to revert my move of this page. The reason being that the result of this RfD discussion may affect the title of this page if it is a subpage of Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and I’m certain that would need broader discussion than the RfD. And yes, I later realized that many guidelines use the "Wikipedia:DE FACTO PARENT PAGE (SUBPAGE)" naming convention, so it is a bit different that this would be one-off situation. Steel1943 (talk

) 14:50, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

There are quite a few refs to

We've had discussions on such sources. See, for example,

talk

) 23:04, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Discussing content on supplements in

I should also point out that I've removed the "reference" to [[

talk

) 06:08, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Regarding this, something about "unacceptable sources" should be there. Regarding "usually unreliable," as seen here with a followup note here, it was just a wording mistake in my edit summary. Definitely wasn't a suggestion.

talk

) 08:44, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Apologies, Kingofaces43, I wasn't trying to edit-war; from your edit comment ("Last sentence isn't really needed since it's not really giving further guidance") I thought you might have just removed the archive link with the sentence it was attached to the end of, without objection to it in and of itself. It does support the "Suppl." statement, but you are right that it isn't really a reference; more of a footnote, really. Perhaps I could have used {{refn|group=lower-alpha|Note: See [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 109#Sponsored supplement?|this discussion]] of how to identify shill academic articles cited in Wikipedia.}}</ref> or some such?

Flyer22, I realized that it was just a wording mistake, and I am not suggesting putting this opinion of mine in the article, just joking about inadvertent accuracy. I think it's pretty obvious from the context about third-party, independent sources that some supplements are unacceptable sources, but am not the best judge. Do people feel that we need a warning to look up the funding and affiliations of organizations that fund supplements? They sometimes have very innocuous names:

Rippe Health, or something like that. HLHJ (talk

) 05:37, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Missed these comments on my watchlist somehow, so sorry about that. HLHJ, the main issue is that we normally don't link to talk discussions, but instead generate content that sums up that discussion adequately enough so a link isn't needed (barring where you draw the line on things like instruction creep).

How do I determine from an article if it's subject to MEDRS or not? For example, what about CSRP3? Mathglot (talk) 08:54, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Is a medical claim (e.g., treatment) being made?

WP:SCIRS. Boghog (talk

) 09:56, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

We have the

talk

) 20:21, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Page-watchers here may be interested in this fantastic paper led by Ben Goldacre about problems with published clinical trials and abuse heaped upon the team by gatekeeping journal editors. [5]

jps (talk) 11:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I learned of a new research saying that glyphosate (a common herbicide) increases risk of cancer. I added a couple of lines to the Wikipedia article, as follows: "In February 2019, a new research from the University of Washington found that exposure to glyphosate increases risk of some cancers by more than 40 percent^[1]." However, my lines were immediately deleted, with comment "We need a better source than that; it's only a press release". My questions: 1) What's wrong with a university press release. Does Wikipedia suspect the objectivity and correctness of university press releases? 2) The press release contains a link to the original article. If the problem was with not linking to the original article, why did the editor delete my addition instead of correcting the link? 3) In the discussion page the editor raised another issue, saying that the research needs to reach "scientific consensus" before publication. Why isn't an academically reviewed paper enough to indicate scientific consensus? 4) Who decides what the consensus is - WHO? NIH? and if so - why don't they review the papers in the first place? -- thanks, Ronnie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.109.189.248 (talk) 20:47, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

The original discussion is at Talk:Glyphosate#New meta-analysis out today says "raises risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma by 41%". --Tryptofish (talk) 21:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

From seven months ago on this TALK page (now archived) [6]

This week the NEJM published a blinded placebo-controlled multicenter trial of the drug tafamidis, a putative small molecule treatment for ATTR cardiomyopathy. The trial found the drug cut mortality rates (p<.001) and hospitalizations and improved clinical outcomes. It is inductively supported by some work with tafamidis in the neuropathy of ATTR and also by basic biochemical studies showing how the drug works to stabilize ATTR so amyloid does not form from it. But there are not yet any confirming studies, and won't be for some years. So I put in a paragraph saying what the trial had found, but I didn't add what you can read in an NEJM editorial: Given the dearth of acceptable treatments for this disorder, these robust efficacy results, combined with a benign safety profile, suggest an important role for tafamidis in the treatment of transthyretin cardiomyopathy. (NEJM Sept 13, 2018, p. 1084).

Now, I care nothing about tafamidis. I have no horse in this race. But I'm interested in amyloids, so I added the study for what it found, and nothing more. My addition was then completely reverted by user:Jytdog here with the somewhat rude comment that we avoid primary sources, along with a comment on my talk page that I had formatted the references wrong.

Why should I work to get them right, if somebody is just going to remove rather than improve? That's why I stay away from the medical content of Wikipedia. From what I know of ATTR (including familial amyloid polyneuropathy) I would be willing to bet a large sum that this drug is active. I would also be willing to bet a lesser sum that, given the important nature of this study, somebody will succeed in adding some review of ATTR treatment that contains this study as centerpiece (but nothing more that confirms it), as a "secondary source" in WP, and it will "stick." Or more likely, the FDA will use the same study (or the same multicenter data) as basis to approve the drug for this use. THEN, WP will mention it. But the FDA's endorsement (with no more data) adds nothing epistemologically, either. NONE of it is better than just the primary source and editorial, no matter who else signs-on. The evidence is just as good (or bad) as it ever was. Meanwhile, you're just fooling yourselves. But you on WP will do that. Wait and see.

(Sept 2018)

Fast forward to yesterday May 6, 2019 ^[1] The FDA approved tafamidis for ATT-CR (cardiomyopathy) based on the single NEJM study above, and no other data. (Projected cost for patients is $225,000 a year. Two cheers)

Apparently I am clairvoyant, as this is exactly what I predicted would happen last September (see above). Alas, nobody took me up on my bet.

However, I was not allowed to enter the study upon which this drug was approved, into the article on amyloid polyneuropathy. Although it was in the NEJM, it was seen as a primary study, and thus not include-able in WP, despite being the best clinical study available (and thus actually not in violation of WP:MEDRS until there was some statement of it being an accepted treatment-- it would have to put as "experimental treatment." But I wasn't given that option either.) A fight in the WP:AN3 erupted with me being reported by user:Jytdog [7]. This did nobody any good. A long discussion on this TALK page featured Jytdog giving a dissertation on how medical journals are corrupt and even NATURE has to withdraw articles, and THEREFORE this NEJM article could not be mentioned on WP. See the above reference-- I do not want to repeat it all here, but go and read. And it featured me saying this whole argument was ridiculous (see above) because the FDA was going to approve the drug anyway, based on this single study that we refuse to mention on WP. Which is just what happened.

Now that the drug is approved, the study I wanted to include has been made notable by the fact that the FDA used it as data to approve the drug. However, the study itself is still a primary source. Mentions in secondary reviews do not change that, as a review of one paper is not a review, but simply a mention by somebody else, with nothing to add. No new knowledge or reliability is added.

At the end of the discussion referenced above, I was asked what my solution was. I had none. I still have none. Against stupidity, the gods themselves contend in vain. WP's MEDRS edit-warring is really stupid. Common sense do I not see. Although I am able to predict the future, so there's that. SBHarris 01:29, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, I just found out that the editor Jytdog who blocked my inclusion of the NEJM article cite last September, and then took me to the 3RR noticeboard over it, was actually banned last December, a few months later, for some completely unrelated WP infraction, but which also involved total intractability over editing. Where there is smoke, there is fire. Where is my apology??? for the crap this editor and WP put me through on this single citation for this single drug-- the wikilawyering, and the bad faith, and the perverted process, and (finally) the poorer encyclopedia that came out of the process because not one of you stood up for my side of what was happening? 03:31, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Can a blog be used to proof a point in an article, even if this is from a relative reputed scientist? KFvdL (talk) 20:28, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

As it says at the top, this page is "for discussing improvements to the Identifying reliable sources (medicine) page", not for general queries. If your question is whether blog posts can be reliable sources, the answer is yes. It depends on the precise use. The question should be asked at the article's talk page or (with a specific example as stipulated there) at

talk

) 13:28, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, I will bring it up there. KFvdL (talk) 22:17, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello I see the fundraising button on wiki. I would gladly donate but I have a few issues.

1. I am a homeopath and the homeopathy page you have does not reflect the true nature of homeopathy
2. I am a homeopath and your medical reference sections do not list anything about herbology or homeopathy, only allopathic treatment options
3. I am a book writer and medical researcher and your human biology sections do not include anything about the wealth of information on herbal and homeopathic drugs that treat any of these conditions.
4. I am a practitioner that works with children who have vaccine damage and no content about vaccines on Wiki talks about the damages that vaccines do.
5. Because I am a homeopath and work with vaccine damage not only are my medical or research needs not met by wikipedia, I am cast out as a charlatan, liar, practicing pseudo- science, and criminally negligent for not being pro-vaccine. I remember when the internet was developed. The vision was for a vast vault of knowledge for a better world or free information. It appears that that is not possible when there is an agenda to censor and manipulate the information being presented. Homeopathy has been around for over 2000 years and Herbology is ancient. There needs to be more complete information on the internet to reflect and fulfill the quest humans have to know. A medically driven myopic view of the world is not helping anyone.

When wikipedia is able to support something other than the pharmaceutical driven medical agenda I would be happy to contribute.

Plus also the homeopathy page has been taken over by anit-homeopathy people. It is locked and there is not talk page. Until Wikipedia and all the volunteers who work the platform allow representative from the profession who understand the 200 year old practice of homeopathy, and are willing to discuss it in a descriptive rather than opinion based context I will stand by my 'I would donate but..' I can't support an organization that actively denies the reality of my life, practice and the patients who I see every day that are helped with homeopathy.

If you would please forward this on to people who might review this. There is money to be had in this world and money to shared for the good of humanity. I know I will not be sharing any of my money with wikipedia and it volunteer editors when they/it is bent on trying to destroy not only my financial livelihood, but that of 500,000's or more other homeopathic practitioners around the world and the 200 million people who utilize homeopathy worldwide and the multi-million dollar industry of homeopathic remedies. The action by wikipedia and its editors such as the likes of Ben Goldacre, taken against one sector of the GDP and the international practice and trade of homeopathic remedies and knowledge. Homeopathy would never had gotten to this level of econimic growth if it did not work.

This action taken by the editors on Wikipedia is worthy of antitrust legal action. I will need to be taking with my people on how to take steps along these lines.

• https://www.hri-research.org/resources/essentialevidence/use-of-homeopathy-across-the-world/
• https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/cpg-sec-400400-conditions-under-which-homeopathic-drugs-may-be-marketed.
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law

Thank you for your careful consideration into this matter. Please forward to the people who need to know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katebhom (talk • contribs) 00:19, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

@

WP:FRINGE theory and therefore not worthy of any coverage in any capacity but that.--Jasper Deng (talk)

00:32, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

There is little to respond here except to point at

b

} 18:40, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Also,

we do not take legal threats lightly; you may be blocked or banned if you continue to claim legal action. --Masem (t

) 18:59, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Homeopathy would never had gotten to this level of econimic [sic] growth if it did not work. So the huge size of the gambling industry shows that gambling works for those who engage in it? It's a ridiculous argument. Snake oil may have been discredited, but snake oil products abound, sadly. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:42, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

What is the scope of MEDRS, in the sense of which articles are subject to it, and which parts of those articles?

This doesn't seem to be clearly stated here. Despite its obvious necessity, MEDRS is often used as a

One question is, "Which articles are subject to MEDRS?" Another is, "For a MEDRS-subject article, is any {RS, non-MEDRS} sourcing acceptable?" Practice at present seems to be to land-grab articles as being "under MEDRS", then to insist on MEDRS sourcing throughout that article. I do not see policy (and MEDRS and RS are anyway both guidelines, not policy) to support that.

The lead contains this (emphasis mine):

For this reason, all biomedical information must be based on reliable, third-party published secondary sources, and must accurately reflect current knowledge. This guideline supports the general sourcing policy with specific attention to what is appropriate for medical content in any Wikipedia article, including those on alternative medicine. Sourcing for all other types of content – including non-medical information in medicine-articles – is covered by the general guideline on identifying reliable sources.

Note that this does not identify "MEDRS-requiring" articles, or impose any global standard within such articles, but rather refers to biomedical content within any articles. It is also specific that non-medical content within that same article must meet RS, but not necessarily MEDRS.

As an example, I believe that an article on Dr Foster's Magic Purple Pills could contain the following:

• Dr Foster's pills cure everything (Strong MEDRS sourcing required)
• Dr Foster's pills were invented by Dr Archibald Foster and released onto the market in 2015 (RS sourcing)
• The pills are purple and triangular, packaged one to a box (RS sourcing) as no-one ever manages to swallow a second one (MEDRS!)

My point is this: even within an article that is clearly on a biomedical topic, where significant claims are made which obviously require MEDRS, there are also areas that do not require it. That is legitimate. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:33, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Yup, it applies to

talk

) 09:16, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Due to several articles coming out in mainstream sources, I am looking to have a better article to cover the issues of "violence and video games" which is presently buried among the article Video game controversies. I am initially tackling this from a history standpoint, focusing only on when various govt actions and other key statements and actions were made. Not a MEDRS question yet.

However, I do feel that at some point we will need to include some cross section of studies - of which there have been numerous - that claim there's no connection between video games and violence, with a few that do make that assertion. This is where I ask: would MEDRS cover this side of the issue, if the nature of these studies that will be used should meet MEDRS? This does have to do with psychiatry and mental health, so I think it will just slip into MEDRS coverage for that.

Assuming this is the case, I suspect that I as I dig into politician responses, they are going to cite studies that do fail MEDRS. Assuming the politician's statement is appropriate and not UNDUE, is linking to the non-MEDRS study appropriate or not? Do we call this out as a bad source (I don't thnk we can).

(I do recognize there are other facts on the current Video game controversies page where there are medical claims being made - eg playing video games releasing endorphins-type stuff and that's going to need a better cleanup for MEDRS compliance, but I'm voicing on if a study suggesting video games lead to violence has to be handled by MEDRS sources?) --Masem (t) 23:08, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

@

WP:SCIRS, although unfortunately this is not (yet?) a recommendation but only an essay. --Signimu (talk

) 20:43, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

If you're still looking for sources, then you might try

WT:MED. WhatamIdoing (talk

) 02:20, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

The detail is in the link above. --Envisaging tier (talk) 09:54, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Is it an ok source to use in biomedical articles ?Walidou47 (talk) 21:24, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

This article is a little crumby, and could possibly use some eyes in light of the whole COVID thing. NickCT (talk) 01:23, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

My apologies if this is a repeat, I've seen some editors remove things based on: "report something when there's a trial result - the mere fact of a trial should not be reported" Is this really the absolute case no exception? In particular, a page I was working on includes this content (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_drug_repurposing_research) and that information (in my opinion) is of significant note. ProbablyAndrewKuznetsov (talk) 23:02, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

If it's noteworthy, then secondary MEDRS sources will report on it that should be sourced. Remember that

talk

) 00:09, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

In this particular case, I would venture to disagree. Your reasoning contains some leaps of logic that arrive at an invalid conclusion. Firstly, regarding what Wikipedia is not, your argument based on that policy is not relevant in this context; it could be used to argue that there should not BE any Wikipedia article(s) COVID-19, but as there clearly already ARE, it can't be used as a reason to delete content within the article -- because, that would necessarily include ALL content within the article, and would thus undermine the article itself. The same is true regarding whether content is not noteworthy unless it is published in a secondary sourced medical journal. That is a standard that would be impossible to meet for ANY content that could be included in the article(s) in question.

Now, regarding @ProbablyAndrewKuzetsov's original question, whether that guideline is absolutely the case, no exceptions: absolutely not. See WP:IGNORE. Furthermore, it is in my opinion that articles on this subject matter should not be treated as strictly medical-related articles, so I don't think strict application of guidelines for medical articles should be used....regarding the noteworthiness of the content and whether it should be included, that should be discussed, and the solution should reflect consensus. I believe the proper cycle is remove, revert, discuss ( in order to avoid

edit warring

.

Cheers, hope this was helpful :) Firejuggler86 (talk) 20:37, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you that was very useful. ProbablyAndrewKuznetsov (talk) 02:45, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I just reverted this content, but there is a quote from Nature, and I'd like others to check if I did the right thing. --

MEDRS applies. I don't think the Nature ref meets that criteria. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:11, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Whether or not the nature ref meets the criteria would depend on whether or not the ultimate source of the information cited meets the criteria, and not necessarily on whether nature itself does. I don't know if it does or not, but if this is an issue to anyone, they might want to look into that... Regarding herbal medicine: perhaps an alternative to removing any mention of its existence would be to reword it in such a way that reflects reality; that is, that it *is* being used by people in hope of it being beneficial in the absence of any known effective medicine, the effectiveness of which cannot be known. (The last part of that sentence i think is patently obvious enough that it needs no citation: see

WP:BLUESKY

). In short, it is my opinion that factual information that is relevent, *so long as diligent care be taken so to not present it in such a way that may be misleading*, with *due weight*, is usually preferable to no information at all.

Firejuggler86 (talk) 21:17, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

If we can put it in proper context, maybe, but the problem in cases like this is usually that there's little to draw from other than promotion. The content in question is opportunistic, irresponsible, promotion. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 22:15, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Agree with User:Hipal an editorial is not sufficient for the content in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:47, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Hoping someone can add some additional context to the line about UpToDate. It jumps out as unusual to me, since the reason it's to be avoided seems based on the accessibility of specific versions. Ideally a source would keep individual versions accessible, but with archival tools so easily accessible (and even, in many cases, automated), it seems like there's no need for that to be a deal-breaker. Is there more to it? --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:39, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

“in vitro” — in glass

“in vivo” — in (the) living

http://www.chem.ucla.edu/~harding/IGOC/I/in_vitro.html

Maybe if we’re using both terms as part of a contrast and a compare, or maybe if we’re using it as part of a more common phrase such as “in vitro fertilization.” Other than that, I think we’re mainly just showing off, I’m sorry, and not focusing on clear communication with our reader.

Now, our reader’s just as smart as we are. We don’t need to talk down to him or her, for that’s almost always a mistake. But neither do we need to throw in a technical term merely for the sake of having a technical term. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 00:00, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

What's this got to do with identifying reliable sources? Are you looking for

b

} 00:09, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

The editor made this change to a long-standing piece. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:04, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I can decipher no reason for this revert; it is simply better grammar and sound logic (cannot be known in advance). I do not understand the revert, Flyer? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:17, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Crossroads explained very clearly below. Supposed bad grammar was the last thing on my mind when reverting the piece. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:44, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Our second paragraph currently includes:

” . . . Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content – as such sources often include unreliable or preliminary information, for example early lab results which don't hold in later clinical trials.”

What we do is to merely suspend belief. The fact is, these lab results might pan out in clinical trials, or they might not. So, to reflect this not knowing and also for the sake of reading flow, I’d prefer:

” . . . for example early lab results which may or may not hold in later clinical trials.”

@Flyer22 Frozen: I’d appreciate having your views regarding this. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:57, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I said the same thing in the section above, where I questioned the revert. I can see no reason that the grammatical improvement was reverted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:01, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I prefer the pre-existing text which she reverted to. It is saying that such sources often include...early lab results which don't hold in later clinical trials". (Emphasis added.) This is the truth. It is not saying that early results never hold in later clinical trials, but that often they do not. How often? Too often such that early lab results in primary sources should not be used to, say, tout this or that as a remedy. I see no reason to water this down with a "may or may not". We are not here encyclopedically talking about how clinical trials work; we are warning against improper use of primary sources. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:08, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: it’s not only grammatical. Per @Crossroads: there’s also a difference in emphasis. I can only say it stumbled me the first time I read it. I had to go back to read it and realize, okay, it’s not saying all early results fail. It’s saying that because some fail, all are unreliable. But I still think we can improve upon it. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:16, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't know why we need the make the page so hard to read; what Flyer reverted to makes no sense. We can't know in advance. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:28, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Crossroads. Find some other way to state the same thing if "don't" is supposedly so hard to read, but do not water it down. And just to be clear, I will not be debating this. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:44, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Flyer, I suggest that when you have reverted someone, "not debating this" is not an option; discussion is how we develop consensus and improve things on Wikipedia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:51, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Um, no. I do not need a lecture on how Wikipedia works, and you know that. I gave my opinion. I am free to comment and move on if I want to. Others are free to comment and move on if they want to. Consensus can form without me. Editors are not obligated to debate a thing. That is how Wikipedia works. Editors are very much aware of the fact that I discuss issues. They know that I debate issues. But discussing issues is not necessarily the same thing as debating issues. You also know that. I choose what I comment on or debate. After I have commented on a matter, including a revert I made, and explained my viewpoint, I do not need to keep commenting unless I choose to do so. As an example, I chose not to debate all of that drug price drama; I chose to ignore the related ArbCom circus you tried to drag me to.

Your "make an enemy of Flyer because she occasionally agreed with Doc James about drug pricing and/or on other things I personally disagree with" mindset, after we have gotten along for years, is quite distasteful and very disappointing. And, other than this post, I'm not spending any more time on it. Reply however you want. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:14, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

This is WT:MEDRS; please take personalization elsewhere. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:07, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: thank you for standing up in favor of my proposed edit. Let’s see if we can perhaps get Crossroads on board and maybe tweak the edit a little. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 01:47, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, let's :) What is here now is:

Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content – as such sources often include unreliable or preliminary information, for example early lab results which don't hold in later clinical trials.

I see multiple problems.

1. This is out of sync with
   WP:PSTS
   . Yes, we rarely use primary sources, but in fact, they do have a place even in medical articles. For example, when discussing a seminal study (as mentioned by secondary sources), we may actually cite the primary study. So, by saying "should generally not be used", we are really giving the editor nothing useful.
2. We simply do not know that they include "unreliable" information: in fact, that is circular reasoning. We deem them unreliable in Wikipedia terms, but the information in them, although preliminary, could turn out to be accurate and reliable. So, we've messed up here by calling preliminary information "unreliable", and not really explained to new or experienced editors what we mean.
3. "Ditto for "early lab results which don't hold in later"; we are going in circles.

The whole thing needs some wordsmithing. Things have gotten well out of whack on this page. If you go back quite a few years, you find a reasonable explanation of primary sources in medicine, which offers some starting places for repair. Besides being confusing to read, the current text has gotten out of sync with Wikipedia-wide policy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:05, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: because the first header already says “ . . best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. . , ” I tend to feel that we don’t need to spell out in the article that it’s sometimes fine to include a primary source. And I agree that a seminal study would be a great example of such, along of course with a solid review article or two citing it.
Try as I may, I think I’m back to “may or may not” as a good, straightforward way of communicating the fact that we simply do not know.
I like the idea of comparing our current version to one several years ago, or even 10 years ago. It’s a big project. Maybe we can start with spot-checking, such as what you’re talking about here of how strongly we wave people off from primary sources. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 00:24, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm open to purely stylistic tweaks, but I oppose anything that would water down our discouragement of primary sources. We do not need to make it easier for people to cluelessly add random studies they hear about in the media, or even to

WP:PSTS, that states, "Appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and these are general rules. Deciding whether primary, secondary, or tertiary sources are appropriate in any given instance is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages." In other words, there is leeway for deciding what is appropriate, and it makes perfect sense that MEDRS would be stricter about primary sources than other areas of the encyclopedia like, say, highways or TV episodes. As for the idea that the current wording makes it sound like primary research is always wrong or unreliable, I have nothing to add to what I said above. Both that and the idea that it is confusing are subjective; to me it has always been perfectly clear. We'll see what others say if and when they weigh in. Crossroads ^-talk-

03:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@Crossroads: I’ve heard that only a low percentage of cures for cancer in genetically identical mice end up working in humans. Other areas of medicine, maybe a higher percentage. If we could run across even a couple of these statistics, it would enrich our article, as well as showing different ranges of not working and thereby providing our fellow editors another example of the uncertainty involved. Other than that, I think we have to use something similar to “may or may not.”
By the way, when you mention highways, if you’re talking about building highways, I personally think engineering is about a generation ahead of medicine. But then, medicine is trying to understand and change things which are quite literally . . . biologically complex. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 02:31, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

You said it would "enrich our article", but this isn't an article. With highways, I didn't mean engineering, I literally meant the numerous articles we have about this or that highway, which usually lack secondary sources (or even any inline sources) for route descriptions and the like. Same for TV episodes and plot descriptions. The medical field is far too complex and important to allow that sort of thing. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:16, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

You’re right. It’s a project page. Some crucial differences. I still think it would help giving some specific examples, as long as we don’t go overboard.
I’ll tell you one thing. I did not know what a “review article” was well into my adult years. And I’m guessing it’s the same for a lot of other people. So, again not going overboard, I think we could lift people’s game if we had a good succinct explanation of what one is relatively early in the project page. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 23:36, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm on team don't water down. As mentioned above, this isn't an article about how clinical trial works, this is saying don't cite early lab results those because they often don't pan out and therefore aren't reliable sources.

What water down? When I read “often include unreliable . . . for example early lab results which don't hold in later clinical trials,” my reaction was merely confusion. Uh? I think the entire thing without my ellipses is more confusing. I’ve pared it down. And I had to read it several times before I was satisfied, okay, they’re saying that all are unreliable because some don’t pan out. It really is a complex sentence. And we shouldn’t have to parse it this closely. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 23:48, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Preprints are not considered MEDRS and thus shall not be used for sourcing Wikipedia. They have even become dangerous to use because one can become sanctioned (see

However, I want to propose an exception to the guideline of banning preprints, because of this recent news report stating that the chinese government is "tightening its grip" on covid research. This has been a controversial measure, that could censor any research that suggests negligence of the chinese regarding the origin of the spread of the virus. Although I appreciate the spirit of excluding preprints as MEDRS, I suggest that we relax it regarding preprints from chinese scientists in the eventual case that RS report that they were censored by the chinese government, in which case their information can not physically proceed to the peer review stage despite any merit. According to Nature the regular channels of science publication in China are distorted by government interference and preprints may be the only escape valve for them.Forich (talk) 14:24, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

IAR right now. They don't really represent typical medicine articles where were are not concerned with new developments in the last 24 hours or are relying so much on tertiary sources like government or WHO websites aimed at a lay audience. We aren't here to right-great-wrongs and if there is medical information that deserves to be on Wikipedia then I'm sure it will be published in the secondary literature. If it isn't, then it isn't our job to decide what research the public need to hear about, and we just have to accept that. -- Colin°^Talk

15:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Someon is really rather keen to get the Verywell sites removed from the blacklist. The most likely use, according to what little data we have from logs, is on medical articles (which is kind of obvious). Does this sound like something that would be acceptable? Not necessarily for biomedical claims but for overviews of diseases, for example. Guy (help!) 21:07, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 292#Verywell and MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Verywell, 2. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:30, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources § Reliable sources for medicine, nutrition and toxicology should state dose

 – ​— Newslinger talk 01:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

To wait for secondary sources which state dose in events such as chloroquine poisoning may be thought to delay distribution of safety concerns. (What part should Wikipedia be playing in distributing safety information?) But to allow sources which do not specify dose may enable editors to create a perception about a formulation.Soundhill (talk) 00:16, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Newslinger I am thinking about such things as "Large amounts of swallowed toothpaste can be toxic." ^[1] but no mention of what is a large amount for a young child. Whether on an ongoing basis or one-off.

I refer to perception-manipulation, which could be in this case such as in a TV advertisement showing a brush being covered in toothpaste, which might be different from instructions on some toothpaste packages. I haven't found it easy to find perception-manipulation on Wikipedia, either.

This year the world has been rapidly progressing through the covid-19 pandemic. Research is developing but by the time it gets to secondary sources people may have gone into intensive care which could have been prevented. One person died of using a formulation of a malaria drug also used for treating fish/tanks it was reported but not the dose they took. That has been used to warn people off something without dose mention and I can't tell if leaving off that dose data means people who primary research has said could be helped will be denied. ^[2]Soundhill (talk) 02:56, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Soundhill, I've moved the discussion here since this page (the talk page of

WP:MEDRS) receives more attention from editors who focus on medicine-related topics. I'm not familiar enough with the subject to be of much help here, but hopefully others are. — Newslinger talk

20:26, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Personally I find that peer reviewed research journals are going to need their own RS page soon. Jdabs (talk) 18:43, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I did a bunch of searching on the National Library of Medicine site to discern the best ways to determine if a journal meets WP:MEDRS standards, e.g., "Is it indexed by MEDLINE?" and "Is it listed in the Index Medicus?" Based on what I found, I created a list of guides, FAQS, tutorials, etc. at User:Markworthen/PubMed-Help, including specific help for Finding journals that comply with WP:MEDRS standards. If I have repeated help that's already available somewhere else on Wikipedia, please let me know! Otherwise, I'm posting this info in case it's helpful to other editors.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 06:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm finding https://www.scopus.com/sources to be quicker. The comparison with other journals in the same field(s) is particularly handy. Other research suggests that the lowest ~20% of journals have more problems (e.g., blatant copyvios), and no editor with any sense will argue that only the top handful of journals in any field are acceptable (unless we're grasping at straws to support some serious POV pushing, but No True™ Wikipedia Editor would ever stoop to that, right? ;-) ), so it's convenient to be able to look up a journal, see that it's in the middle quintile, and stop wondering whether the bad one is the one called J Vague Abbr or the one called Int J Vague Abbr. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Great tip WhatamIdoing! Thank you.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 16:22, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

One of my concerns about WP:MEDRS is that some subjects are covered in good journals that are not indexed in MEDLINE because they are not biomedical journals. My experience is primarily with psychology topics. I searched the Scopus subject index (at the link WhatamIdoing posted) and found Medicine > Psychiatry and Mental Health, and I was pleased to see that it lists several clinical psychology journals. In fact the top two are clinical psych journals (Annual Review of Clinical Psychology and Clinical Psychology Review). Nice. :)   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 16:38, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Probably a good idea to mention

Henceforth, I will check both WP:CITEWATCH and Scopus for psychiatry & psychology journals. WP:CITEWATCH (and

Frontiers in Psychiatry, our Wikipedia article offers cautionary information, and, at the same time, the journal ranks in the top 20% of Psychiatry and Mental Health journals per Scopus. My take is that Frontiers in Psychiatry contains many well-written, well-referenced, good articles, but it also contains some mediocre articles that do not pass muster.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk)

(I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 16:58, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

UPSD's one-size-fits-none treatment of Frontiers is one of the reasons that I wouldn't recommend it to anyone. The directions say to use it merely as a simple guide and to double-check it, but basically nobody does. Some of them are rather dogmatic about its results: We joke that we'd take a self-published blog post from Albert Einstein on physics, but if he published an article in one of the journals highlighted by USPD, some editors don't care whether he's an expert. If that script evaluated every journal separately, or if it removed the publishers who are in the 50–50 range (including Frontiers), then it would be less susceptible to misuse, but I don't see any way around the problem of editors trusting the script (and therefore distrusting the publisher) more than independent evaluations or the judgment of experienced editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I find the script to be helpful, but then I also investigate further. I agree that many editors do not appreciate the importance of a detailed, nuanced evaluation of individual articles and journals. I will continue to challenge rigid, simplistic conclusions about references, but my impression is that there are more "rigid editors" who spend more time and energy on Wikipedia than "careful editors". Maybe something about this problem could be added to WP:MEDRS?   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 17:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Frontiers is a garbage publisher, which happens to publish acceptable research occasionally/semi-frequently. It varies greatly by journal and it varies even more from paper to paper, but their journals will accept nearly everything and editorial boards get sacked when they emphasize quality over quantity. As a researcher, I wouldn't cite a Frontiers paper unless absolutely necessary, or that I vetted every line of the paper myself. On Wikipedia, I wouldn't cite them unless it was for completely routine information, or absolutely necessary. Certainly wouldn't cite them for the conclusions found in the papers unless, again, it was absolutely necessary. Some might pass MEDRS, but I would be extremely uneasy to cite anything MEDRS to a Frontiers paper.

b

} 21:00, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

And since

b

} 21:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

A topical example of the pitfalls of a one-size-fits-all approach to Frontiers might be PMID 32984206, which publishes a statement by the pediatric section/s of the

European Academy of Pediatrics (a relevant potential MEDRS). More subjectively perhaps, I would feel uncomfortable not being able to cite PMID 30619331 – an uncommonly useful review by subject experts that sets out to cover a key topic. 86.161.190.118 (talk

) 09:47, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

At the same time, I also feel a personal need to caution against excessive reliance on impact factors, given the ethically troubling practices of certain 'non-predatory' journals to game the system, with editorial boards that more or less subtlety exert direct or indirect pressure on authors to selectively cite their journal. I've seen egregious deployment of such practices, including targeted creation by professionally affiliated or 'friendly' authors of largely redundant reviews specifically designed to self-cite the journal, and how they can propel a journal into the leading bunch within a highly competitive sector. I wouldn't go as far as to suggest that the content of that particular journal is necessarily unreliable, but I can easily empathize with some of the strongly felt opinions expressed above about co-ercing quantity over quality. Imo, a significant concern here is to avoid rejecting pertinent medrs content (maybe regarding rare diseases, or non-Western populations) that is otherwise acceptable, just based on a lowish impact factor which may actually reflect a greater degree of editorial integrity than the numerical score might suggest. Here again, I think we need to be wary of one-size-fits-all approaches. 86.190.128.121 (talk) 10:23, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

• Hear, hear! Exceptionally well said. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 03:35, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Apologies but it seems the medical rules for wiki are different from the rest of wiki; if consensus sources only are acceptable, then the content becomes much more backward-looking than the rest of wiki (where a comment sourced by a primary sources is acceptable). I wonder if each medical article could have a link to a 'primary research' addendum article - or an appendix discussing primary sources. Then readers would be ale to see some of the more recent research directions and thinking. It just seems odd that there is this difference in medical articles on wiki c.f. other articles.JCJC777 (talk) 06:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Actually the whole of Wikipedia, not just

WP:SECONDARY). Secondary sources are especially important in biomedical sciences because of the Replication crisis. In short, an astonishing high percentage of scientific experiments simply cannot be repeated. It is therefore essential that these results are reviewed and integrated with other studies before concluding the results are reliable. Furthermore how many times have you heard that coffee causes disease X and then a new study published in the next month claims that coffee cures disease X. Independent studies often come to different conclusions. Which study should be cited? Again, the only way to arrive at a reliable conclusion is to rely on secondary sources. Boghog (talk

) 12:31, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia simply is not the place to report primary research results. That's what journals are for.

b

} 14:07, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

@JCJC777: I have had similar concerns in the past, but over time I have come to appreciate the policy on reliable sources generally and primary sources specifically, although it has been a bumpy journey. Discussions like this one have definitely helped me gain a deeper understanding, but probably the most helpful thing I've done is to read this content guideline—Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)—over and over again. It is a carefully written guideline that I would rate A-class + good article + featured article, if we had such quality indicators for Wikipedia guidelines. In other words, it's a top-notch, best-in-its-class guideline. (IMHO, of course.) ¶ Note that the "primary source rule" is not a rigid, "never ever" rule. The guideline itself notes exceptions. The leading coronavirus and COVID-19 articles on Wikipedia serve as exemplars for understanding this guideline, including judicious, careful, conservative citations to a select few primary sources. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 03:51, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

P.S. Despite this excellent guideline, many primary sources sneak into medical articles, often in the Risks/Genetics and Pathophysiology sections (among others), I think partly because such research is inherently fascinating and we want to tell people about it! But we really shouldn't until several replications support the original research and good meta-analytic and systematic review articles have been published in reliable sources (journals). I frequently find primary source articles cited as evidence for conclusory statements in an article. For example, in

risk of developing PTSD", again based on a primary source reporting on a very small sample, very preliminary study (diff). Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk)

[he/his/him] 04:24, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

many thanks. much appreciated. will read the guide. JCJC777 (talk) 06:57, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Watchers of this page may be interested in Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) § Biomedical Sciences: An idea to identify acceptable primary research for citations (in addition to citing reviews). Izno (talk) 13:26, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I would encourage you to read this too. It seems a good way to assess the importance of primary research publications which need recognition and inclusion, alongside or before any secondary reviews. Jrfw51 (talk) 17:44, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I suggest modifying these two sentences in the definitions section:

Text that relies on primary sources should usually have minimal 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).

Here is my suggested copy edit:

Text that relies on primary sources should be given

due weight

; that is, statements, paragraphs, and sections supported by reliable secondary or tertiary sources should contain greater depth of detail, more text, and superior prominence of placement compared to primary-source-supported statements. Text that relies on primary sources should clearly indicate that any conclusions made by the source are just that since the conclusions may or may not receive support in subsequent research by others. Primary-source-supported statements must describe research findings clearly so that all editors even those without specialist knowledge can check sources. Primary sources should never be cited in support of conclusory statements in "wikivoice". Conclusory statements must be supported by good secondary or tertiary sources such as meta-analytic or systematic reviews and clinical guidelines.

I am sure my suggested copy edit will benefit from additional refinements by other editors. But what do you think about the gist of my changes as reflected in the above? Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 20:00, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Have you brought this up because of this discussion? I oppose the change. We can use a primary source to make a conclusive statement in Wikipedia's voice (which is why the section question currently states what it states), but context matters. If the topic is barely researched, mainly only has primary sources, and the statement is obviously non-controversial, I see no problem with stating the matter in Wikipedia's voice. There is not always a need to state "A [so and so] study reported [so and so]." And per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Citing sources, it is best to avoid something like "An uncontrolled survey involving 132 experienced long-distance backpackers on the Appalachian trail in 1997 concluded that washing hands after defecating reduces the incidence of diarrhea in the wilderness." unless necessary. I'm of the opinion that attributing a mater to the source via text is necessary when it's a controversial statement or a statement that very likely conflicts with other research on the topic. But when that's not the case or when that's not the case and what is being reported on the matter is all that is known about the topic regarding that aspect? I don't see the problem. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:37, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

We (WikiProject Medicine) sometimes exhibit astounding hypocrisy when it comes to WP:MEDRS. If another editor cites a primary source we don't like, we launch an aggressive "colon attack"—with WP:MEDRS the first missile we launch at the benighted offender. But when we think an area of inquiry merits discussion in an article, we know how to artfully include conclusory statements based on preliminary findings that cite primary sources. If anyone challenges our wise additions, we point with indignation and a practiced superciliousness to

WP:MEDDEF. ¶ "How clever you are, my dear! You never mean a single word you say."^[1] Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk)

[he/his/him] 00:17, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't say I've seen "astounding hypocrisy". Even your proposed version still allows for primary sources, yet we will still have editors removing primary sources in many cases because of concerns about weight. On the flip side, if there are cases where undue weight is being put on what primary sources say, or

WP:In-text attribution is needed, that can be addressed under current guidelines. Crossroads ^-talk-

03:26, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

We never perceive ourselves as being hypocritical. We perceive ourselves as "defending the wiki" (that's when I remove your content) and "improving articles" (that's when I cite the kind of source that I won't let you cite).

However, I don't think that we win any prizes here. I think the prize goes to the people who have trouble remembering that

Wikipedia:Secondary does not mean independent, and who will insist that their article, cited exclusively to breaking news, is 100% sourced to "secondary" sources, because the reporter isn't an active participant in the story. At least when we cite original experimental results in medical articles, we're citing something a a little stronger than a TV news reporter standing in front of a burning house and saying that a house is on fire ("It's news because we can stick a camera in front of it"). WhatamIdoing (talk

) 05:41, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't see that we should make it that specific and detailed. I think the more concise existing version works. It's also important to emphasize that synthesis is improper. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:08, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Markworthen, this reminds me of WP:Based upon. All articles should be "based upon" secondary sources, but no article is absolutely required to eschew all primary sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:05, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Interesting essay - thanks for alerting me to it. And I agree with what you wrote. :) Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 00:18, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I got tired of repeating myself (mostly at WT:V), so I eventually wrote it down in one place. See also

WP:LIKELY and WP:Published for similar pages. WhatamIdoing (talk

) 05:36, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be useful to give an example, either an existing well-written one or one you propose might require primary sources and use them wisely. After all, the guideline should demonstrate best-practice. Also beware that although we casually describe a research paper as a primary source, it may contain weak secondary source material (background section) and not everything we may use it for is from the conclusions. For example, some things may just be bare facts about the study itself like where the research was conducted, how large it was, that some patients died, or identifying a researcher involved. Oh, and to clarify, those things are unlikely to appear in the treatment section of a disease or indications sections of a drug, but could perhaps appear in a history section or in text about the research institution or researcher. Most likely

WP:WEIGHT would require secondary sources to be writing about those things, though as noted above, weight can be difficult to judge if very few people are writing about a worthy article topic at all. -- Colin°^Talk

07:31, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@Crossroads - You're right. "Astounding" was a tad hyperbolic. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 18:25, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@Colin - Great suggestion. Everything else you wrote makes good sense to me. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 18:25, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing - Is there anything other than "breaking news" these days? :^O ... PBS Newshour rocks! ;-) Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 18:28, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I've been surprised at how much longform reporting is available. Once the writers aren't constrained to a certain number off column–inches, and the reader isn't constrained to the local newspaper, things like longreads.com became viable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:58, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

If you need help finding examples, then you might try User:MastCell's early editing. It would only be fitting, since the section on preferring secondary sources was largely his idea. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:00, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Any thoughts on this edit (which I reverted) by new account Meansell?

I ask because although I don't cite "non-MEDLINE" as a reason to reject journals, I know that a number of editors have and still do today. And that includes Tgeorgescu, who likely wants to comment on Meansell's edit.

What non-MEDLINE indexed journal should we be open to?

Meansell, hi. Welcome. Although your account is new, you don't appear to be new to editing Wikipedia. By this, I mean that it's very unusual for the very first edits by a brand new account to be to their user page (unless it's a

Hi Flyer22 Frozen,

Yes, I'm a 'student' editor insofar as I'm taking a continuing education course through the NNLM, and have made some edits on random pages in the past that I could've sworn I made while logged in, but apparently wasn't based on my contributions history. I edited the policy/guideline page because as a medical librarian I'm pretty familiar with predatory publishing and what counts as a reputable source, and can claim with some authority that excluding sources based on simply whether they are indexed in MEDLINE or not is rather problematic, as it excludes quite a bit of quality health science literature that is indexed in other reputable databases such as CINAHL (which focuses on nursing) and Embase (which originally specialized in pharma/drug lit). While I definitely agree that MEDLINE is top tier and a core biomedical literature database, it can't be the only indicator upon which sources are included/excluded. Meansell (talk) 03:09, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

But there is already the exception 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. So, I guess, that trumps lack of MEDLINE indexation.

Yeah, if it is an important discovery, it doesn't matter where it was published. The tricky part is however: convince us that it is an important discovery. (No, it is not impossible to do it, it is just hard.) Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:40, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Meansell, you stated that you thought you were signed in. Although I wondered if you had only just created the Meansell account on October 5th and therefore wondered what account you would have signed into before this one, I see that you created your account at 21:17 on June 5, 2017 (3 years ago).

As for the edit in question, we need a standard. As you know, we obviously just can't allow any journal to be used. "MEDLINE-indexed" gives us a standard. Maybe we should have a few examples listed. I will alert

WP:Med to this discussion for further input. Please don't ping me if you reply. Flyer22 Frozen (talk

) 00:58, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I understand there is an exception, but, as Tgeorgescu mentions, this places an additional ("not impossible, but hard") burden of proof on articles from non-MEDLINE journals to demonstrate themselves worthy of an exception, one which is unnecessary if the journal is indexed in a reputable non-MEDLINE database, of which there are several. I agree that having several examples of reputable databases that meet MEDLINE-level standards is a good idea - I'm happy to contribute suggestions of core biomedical databases of high quality. Meansell (talk) 05:22, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

MEDLINE indexes Medical Hypotheses, which should give any editor a good reason not to take MEDLINE as the sole arbiter.

MEDLINE also rejects most non-English journals – which means that middling English-language journals are being preferred over some high-quality French, German, etc., journals – and journals that are on the edges of medicine but which still have relevant biomedical information (e.g., chemistry). The language problem is not a small one, especially in psychiatry and psychology, as different languages/cultures have different approaches to some conditions. To give just two examples, I expect that most of you are aware of the differences between American and French pediatric psychiatrists when it comes to ADHD, and Haltlose personality disorder, which was mentioned at WT:MED the other day, is almost never diagnosed outside of Europe. It's not because these things don't exist around the world, but because the conventional medical establishment has different ideas.

I think that, in general, we need to reconsider how we're teaching editors to evaluate journals. There are no magic numbers and no magic lists. You really need to look at multiple indicators. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:10, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Being in

b

} 11:44, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Side note,

b

} 11:51, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Headbomb: Overall, I absoulutely get where you're coming from here. My question/s would be: Do you think the non-MEDLINE red flag is also valid for fields such as psychiatry or clinical psychology (cf WAID's point above), where PsycINFO, for example, is a key resource? Also *perhaps*: In cases of geographically circumscribed content (and/or some rare conditions maybe), could there be a case to waive this sort of general restriction if broadly MEDRS-compliant content appears in a smaller (maybe local/regional), non-predatory journal that isn't actually MEDLINE-indexed? (And on a sidenote, I think the potential for contribution by medical librarians here is good :). 86.186.94.204 (talk) 15:45, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm no doctor or librarian, and have no real qualified opinion about the state of psychology representation in medline. However, local/regional considerations are a no-go for me. An unknown journal from the small country of Foobar does not get to dodge

b

} 15:59, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm agreed with Headbomb. Additionally, English is the lingua franca of academia, so if something does not appear at all in English journals, that is a red flag. That another culture has another approach to things is not an argument for including that as valid; we are not to be cultural relativists. WAID uses the example of the differences between American and French pediatric psychiatrists when it comes to ADHD, but this is just the sort of thing we should be very skeptical of, because France is unusual in being still enamored with Freudian psychoanalysis, which has been discredited elsewhere. [8] As for because the conventional medical establishment has different ideas, well, that's just the point. Wikipedia is a

WP:MAINSTREAM encyclopedia and is to say what the conventional medical and scientific establishments say. This is not the site to make the case for non-mainstream ideas. Crossroads ^-talk-

16:26, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

agree w/ HEADBOMB and Crossroads--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:21, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

(hum... just to point out that my second query was a tentative one, and I had absolutely no intention of entering into "...MEDLINE enforces Western BIAS!!!" polemic. I have no direct experince of PsycINFO, but am aware of its potential relevance (including in systematic retrieval of guidance/instruments), though not necessarily regarding MEDRS - ping @User:Markworthen for a (possible :) informed opinion .) 86.186.94.204 (talk) 17:05, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Headbomb and Crossroads, I agree with you in general, but I think you've accidentally overstated the case. When a local/regional journal reports specifically local information (e.g., number of measles cases in Foobari last year, whether you can get the drugs your patients need), then we should not treat them the same as you treat the "SCAM" industry. ("SCAM" is a pointedly disparaging abbreviation for "Supplements, Complementary, and Alternative Medicine".) There might very well be a "Western bias" that makes larger journals yawn and drop such papers in the trash, when they would accept the same type and quality of paper if the country reported on figured more prominently among its subscribers. Not all biomedical information is about efficacy.

(Crossroads, AFAICT Freud has nothing to do with the French approach to ADHD. The fact that it's illegal to give methylphenidate and similar drugs to young children is probably relevant, though.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:48, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Meansell's two edits (diff) are spot on. I hope they will be restored, but I won't hold my breath. // MEDLINE indexes biomedical literature. If an article on a biomedical topic cites a journal that MEDLINE doesn't index, that journal begins with a deficit (in terms of credibility & reliability. Of course, such journals will occasionally publish really good articles, but the burden of proof is on the citing Wikipedian. // On the other hand, MEDLINE does not index scores of top-notch psychology journals, and probably hundreds of high-quality social science journals generally. That's not a criticism of MEDLINE by the way. MEDLINE's indexing policy is clear, as is its purpose. // Unfortunately, my experience over the years is that arguments to bring more nuance and clarity to WP:MEDRS usually get shot down. Bang, bang, you chased me out of town—again. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 17:47, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Nuance is perceived as the opposite of clarity. Some editors want bright-line rules that they can enforce against other people's contributions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:50, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Well said, WhatamIdoing. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 17:53, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

• I was asked to comment: In all countries, there are journals that primarily treat national problems. This occurs in all the descriptive sciences, in engineering,, and in public heath. Medline is an Index originally prepared primarily for the US, but with the intent of having an international audience, and it includes all journals in its field dealing in a significant way with world wide problems, and also all journals in its field deal with problems local to the US. In deciding whether to include journals dealing with problems specific to other countries, it focuses on the traditional English speaking countries, and even hereit is less complete than for the US. It includes only the most important journals from elsewhere, regardless of the level of development. This applies as much to France as it does to Nepal. The countries that are most disadvantaged by this at the moment are Japan and China--there are hundreds of Chinese medical journals that would probably be included if they were published in the US in English. Scientists in China and Japan know this, and if they are aiming for an international audience they publishing in the important English language international journals--this is in fact a formal requirement for promotion in the Chinese academic system.

The example "number of measles cases in Foobari last year" is unfair. There are very significant medical problems that rarely occur in the US, but frequently do elsewhere. A great many public health problems are specific to a particular political system. There would be no reason for work in most of these, however important, to be published in a Medline journal. Fwiw, this problem is even more severe in some social science fields: for example, essentially everything on Norse archeology is published in non-English journals that are very rarely found in the US. I've had considerable difficulty getting academics working in such fields accepted into WP. DGG ( talk ) 07:28, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for this information, DGG. And, I repeat WAID's "Not all biomedical information is about efficacy." We seem to focus way too much on that, and the kind of sources that are only really focused on that. -- Colin°^Talk 09:07, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

DGG, are there other/reputable indexes that you would consider to be helpful in identifying decent journals for biomedical-related information? (I'm assuming your advice isn't to give up entirely on using any indexes at all.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:24, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

my advice is to consider the principal journals in each field in each country as notable. There are indexes for Japanese and 'Chinese journals, bt I am unable to use them. There is no index for Indian journals. The available international indexes are

Commonwealth Agricultural Bureau databases, but I have never had occasion to use them. DGG ( talk

) 02:14, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Could we get some eyes on this conversation? NickCT (talk) 16:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

A recent edit (diff) included this statement in the edit note: "(→‎Searching for sources: ...update wording to fit current PubMed interface - hum... "core clinical journals" option gone awol[?])". The "core clinical journals" are also known as the

Thanks for that Markworthen. Given that the edit was merely a further update to ==Searching for sources== I didn't think it was necessary to post here. But now I notice that that handy (for us) PubMed feature was also referenced earlier on the page, under ==Biomedical journals== (now also trimmed[9]). (Fwiw - and OT with respect to WP:MEDRS - personally, I'm missing other traditional features that seem to have gone missing in the current interface, including the ability to to see one's search query "translated" into the string actually used by the search engine - I want to look into this when I get a moment, because I find it hard to believe this is no longer possible). 86.190.128.65 (talk) 17:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Advanced --> Details > and there it is! Jrfw51 (talk) 19:07, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Ah thanks, Jrfw51, I should have spotted that (my bad - now struck above). I still haven't seen a "core clinical journals" filter, but perhaps I've missed that too. 86.190.128.65 (talk) 19:36, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Also ping Mcbrarian (hoping she may have some useful input to share regarding the recent changes to the PubMed interface). 86.190.128.65 (talk) 17:22, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi! Legacy PubMed is still available until October 31 if you still want to use the Core Clinical Journals Feature. I'm home with a sick kid today so my work is scattered but let me know if you want me to draft a search string you can add to any search to limit to only the core clinical journals. I could whip it up pretty easily.Mcbrarian (talk) 14:55, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

"Core-journals" grouping perhaps deemed by NLM to be past its use-by date? (as an oldie, I'm loathe to suggest anything too substantial has changed since the good old days when libraries housing the latest physical volumes of Indexus Medicus could also function as surrogate gyms ;-) 86.186.94.139 (talk) 14:17, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

It looks like if you put jsubsetaim into the search box (along with whatever else you're searching for), then it will limit the results. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:34, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see:

PubMed has several article types you can select when searching. [10]. Just double checking that systematic reviews and meta-analyses are MEDRS compliant? Looks like they are from the pyramid graphic in the article, but I want to double check. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

The very top of

b

} 04:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC)