Wikipedia talk:可靠來源 (醫學)/常見問題解答

message: ===有關中醫的===
replies: text: As of 2014, there are concerns regarding positive bias in publications from China on Traditional Chinese Medicine.Li J, et al The quality of reports of randomized clinical trials on traditional Chinese medicine treatments: a systematic review of articles indexed in the China National Knowledge Infrastructure database from 2005 to 2012. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2014 Sep 26;14:362. Further information:
*"Some countries publish unusually high proportions of positive results. Publication bias is a possible explanation. Researchers undertaking systematic reviews should consider carefully how to manage data from these countries." 
* Such sources should be used with caution. The problem also includes issues with the academic system in China.
===其他隱藏的內容===

text: Include answer here. Quoting MEDRS: Ideal sources for biomedical content includes literature reviews or systematic reviews published in reputable medical journals, academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant field and from a respected publisher, and medical guidelines or position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies. Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content.  Many such sources represent unreliable information that has not been vetted in review articles, or present preliminary information that may not bear out when tested in clinical trials.

text: A non-exhaustive list, in addition to those factors described in MEDRS, includes...

text: This can also describe and expand on the factors already in MEDRS. Also see the section "Besides being a secondary source, what else indicates a source is of high quality?"

text: Include answer here. Useful citations may include Beall's list and the Science sting.
PubMed is a search engine for biomedical research papers. New editors sometimes report PubMed search results as endorsement or publication by NCBI (which maintains the search engine), or the broader organizations NLM or NIH. (Maybe draw an analogy to Google.) A lack of inclusion in Pubmed can indicate that a source is exceptionally poor, or was not published in a biomedical journal, but this conclusion does not apply in the opposite direction. Pubmed includes many primary sources, as well as sources published in poor journals. (See below for using PubMed to find good sources.)
Possibly useful humor essay: Wikipedia:You_might_be_Wikilawyering_if...
Any sourcing standard that is not indiscriminate will exclude some good content; this is true for RS as well. The more important question is how much poor content is excluded. For example, since we can't tell in advance whether a typical primary source is correct, and since we want to be cautious with health-related information, primary sources are typically excluded. The types of sources which would allow us to draw conclusions roughly correspond to those which are permitted by MEDRS. 
Just as RS excludes sources which are not reliable for non-medical claims, MEDRS excludes sources which are not reliable for medical claims. Almost by definition, medical claims which are not discussed in MEDRS-compliant sources are either preliminary, speculative, or too new for the scientific community to have evaluated yet. It is consistent with the NPOV policy to exclude this content. 
While MEDRS may or may not apply in any given situation, it's hard to see how it could be narrower in principle, while still serving its core function of protecting readers. That’s the purpose of requiring a higher standard of sourcing for medical information. Many editors choose to adhere to analogous standards for non-medical information as well, even though it isn't expected.
Many issues surrounding MEDRS have been covered extensively before. However, if you have a new contribution to the discussion, you could try WT:MEDRS. 
--Wolfch (留言) 2020年6月29日 (一) 00:03 (UTC)
thread_title:  我將論述中有關中醫的, 以及一些目前隱藏的內容先移到這裡 

message: :As of 2014, there are concerns regarding positive bias in publications from China on Traditional Chinese Medicine.Li J, et al The quality of reports of randomized clinical trials on traditional Chinese medicine treatments: a systematic review of articles indexed in the China National Knowledge Infrastructure database from 2005 to 2012. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2014 Sep 26;14:362. Further information:
*"Some countries publish unusually high proportions of positive results. Publication bias is a possible explanation. Researchers undertaking systematic reviews should consider carefully how to manage data from these countries." 
* Such sources should be used with caution. The problem also includes issues with the academic system in China.
thread_title: 有關中醫的

message: :Include answer here. Quoting MEDRS: Ideal sources for biomedical content includes literature reviews or systematic reviews published in reputable medical journals, academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant field and from a respected publisher, and medical guidelines or position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies. Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content.  Many such sources represent unreliable information that has not been vetted in review articles, or present preliminary information that may not bear out when tested in clinical trials.
replies: text: A non-exhaustive list, in addition to those factors described in MEDRS, includes...

text: This can also describe and expand on the factors already in MEDRS. Also see the section "Besides being a secondary source, what else indicates a source is of high quality?"

text: Include answer here. Useful citations may include Beall's list and the Science sting.
PubMed is a search engine for biomedical research papers. New editors sometimes report PubMed search results as endorsement or publication by NCBI (which maintains the search engine), or the broader organizations NLM or NIH. (Maybe draw an analogy to Google.) A lack of inclusion in Pubmed can indicate that a source is exceptionally poor, or was not published in a biomedical journal, but this conclusion does not apply in the opposite direction. Pubmed includes many primary sources, as well as sources published in poor journals. (See below for using PubMed to find good sources.)
Possibly useful humor essay: Wikipedia:You_might_be_Wikilawyering_if...
Any sourcing standard that is not indiscriminate will exclude some good content; this is true for RS as well. The more important question is how much poor content is excluded. For example, since we can't tell in advance whether a typical primary source is correct, and since we want to be cautious with health-related information, primary sources are typically excluded. The types of sources which would allow us to draw conclusions roughly correspond to those which are permitted by MEDRS. 
Just as RS excludes sources which are not reliable for non-medical claims, MEDRS excludes sources which are not reliable for medical claims. Almost by definition, medical claims which are not discussed in MEDRS-compliant sources are either preliminary, speculative, or too new for the scientific community to have evaluated yet. It is consistent with the NPOV policy to exclude this content. 
While MEDRS may or may not apply in any given situation, it's hard to see how it could be narrower in principle, while still serving its core function of protecting readers. That’s the purpose of requiring a higher standard of sourcing for medical information. Many editors choose to adhere to analogous standards for non-medical information as well, even though it isn't expected.
Many issues surrounding MEDRS have been covered extensively before. However, if you have a new contribution to the discussion, you could try WT:MEDRS. 
--Wolfch (留言) 2020年6月29日 (一) 00:03 (UTC)
thread_title: 其他隱藏的內容