This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Should the name of the article be quoted? It matters if it's a multi-word article. I just tried the template on Muscular dystrophy, and unquoted (free articles) I get these results. Quoted, these. The difference is exactly this set of articles. So the question is, is this latter set relevant to the topic "muscular dystrophy"? Klortho ( talk) 04:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Before making this live the documentation for this template needs to be complete and there needs to be some community support signing off on it. To get community support, I recommend first getting opinions from participants in WP:Medicine, then asking participants in similar projects, then asking members of the general Wikipedia community.
Similar projects would be those projects which use some template to link a Wikipedia article to some external website. Here are some examples:
When asking general community members for their opinions, I recommend posting at the village pump WP:PUMP. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:27, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
There is an organization called Wiki Project Med which seeks to provide assistance to Wikipedians who are engaged in developing health content. The participants in this organization are highly active Wikipedians. When this project is ready to receive comments, I encourage its developers to ask Wiki Project Med to review it and to ask their membership to solicit comments about this project from other people who are interested in such things. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
It says, "For systematic reviews (preferred when available) click here".
Systematic reviews are only preferred for certain, very narrow kinds of questions. "Does this treatment work?" is a good question for a systematic review. "Which biochemical pathways are involved?" is a lousy question for a systematic review—but a good one for a plain old review. So is "What are the most common treatments?" and "Where does this vein go?" There are many questions that should never be sourced to a systematic review. At minimum, I think that we need to strike the "preferred when available" language. However, I'm thinking that there may be advantages to removing the line altogether. What do you think? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 02:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
This actually is not accurate. I'll be working on issues like this in the systematic review article over the next few weeks. You can do a systematic review on any question at all - and not restricted to health even. There are different methodologies for systematic reviews of causes, prognosis and so on (and there are different search strategies for finding them - I'll be adding links to articles about that those to the article too). But a review can always be more or less systematic. A good systematic review would always be a preferable source to anything else. Given how many competing beliefs even about biochemical pathways there can be, it would be by no means strange for someone to do a systematic review of evidence on that question. Just to pull an example of a systematic review on a classic epidemiological question: consider the question, do dairy products cause breast cancer? Here's a systematic review. Picking some random primary study on that question could be misleading, as it can always be. Systematic reviews of interventions were rare in the 1970s - now there are hundreds every week. Systematic reviews of other study types (including qualitative research) and for other questions are growing in number, and methodological sophistication. And growing outside health as well. If you can ask a question, and people study that question, then you can do a review with great selection bias etc - or do it systematically and minimize the bias. Hildabast ( talk) 12:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
How about this?
It uses less screen real estate and provides the same links. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 21:08, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Is here [2] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Sometimes the link to Trip only directs users to primary sources, which are not ideal since WP:MEDRS directs that editors should use secondary sources. The complaint is here - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Trip_database. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:34, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
A user found that this template on the talk page of Huntington's disease renders the article name as as Huntington%26%2339%3Bs+disease. See the discussion here - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Trip_database. I just confirmed that I see this also on the article talk page. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:34, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
The template does appear to to handle apostrophe's in article titles. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:14, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I think we need to make this template capable of taking into consideration synonyms to account for spelling differences and other variations. For instance pseudomembranous colitis can also be called antibiotic-induced diarrhea or diarrhoea. I think it would be great if we could put in additional synonyms manually. Fuse809 ( talk) 05:33, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Oh sorry for not replying, I did and you didn't. Thanks, by the way. Fuse809 ( talk) 14:32, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I think it'd be advantageous if on top of the additional two conditions one can impose on the template for review articles (namely the free articles and systematic reviews, which are up to the user to decide whether or not they wish to impose it on the articles) we have limiting to English articles as part of this template. Many English speakers only know English and if they know other languages they usually don't know them well, in my experience. Fuse809 ( talk) 14:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
True, most of the majority of drugs/disease states have plenty of English results, but if you look up drugs like metamizole and tilidine that are nearly solely used in non-English-speaking countries you'll get a heap of non-English articles and few English results; hence it might be helpful to have this as an option. Like I'm not saying we should impose it systematically, but I think in cases like these two drugs and other drugs for which you'd get few English results I think it might be nice to have the capability of adding this additional filter. Sort of like as a user-provided extra character to get the template to offer this as an additional option. Fuse809 ( talk) 13:15, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Yeah I realise this, I do that all the time, but what's the point of this template? To direct people that might be technologically challenged to reliable sources that they could understand. Fuse809 ( talk) 15:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
OK, I will accept that the people have spoken. I am glad that I was at least able to get a fair trial of my idea in the WikiProject Medicine community. Brenton ( talk| email) (I automatically watch all pages I edit) 14:18, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi, people, I think we should impose, additionally, on systematic reviews that this template gives such that they're only from the past 5 years. We impose the within the past 5 years requirement on reviews in general in this template because of the fact that medical information gets very frequently updated and hence five years is a nice "rule of thumb" to impose on articles, especially review articles as they summarise the currently available information. I think, however, that we need to impose this on systematic reviews as well, because systematic reviews summarise currently available information in a systematic, methodical way, hence, if anything, for them the 5 years guideline should be enforced even more strictly as they're more likely to become out of date if we go beyond this guideline. Thoughts? Brenton ( talk| email) (I automatically watch all pages I edit) 14:16, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
this is a great tool and i would like to start using it all over the place. but the limitation to "medical" is going to be a problem in articles where MEDRS is applied to cover health issues. MEDRS is very careful in its intro to reference "health" and "biomedical" as well as "medical". Would folks be OK with changing "medical" to "health" in the template? (btw I have no idea what happens to already-used instances of a template, when it is changed...) Jytdog ( talk) 15:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Can we provide the actual search with the underlying page term used for?
Like we do for the other ones? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 05:51, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/CRDWeb/ResultsPage.asp?Active_Results_Tab=0&DatabaseID=0&PageNumber=1&RecordsPerPage=20&SearchSessionID=0&LineID=0&SearchFor=%28{{urlencode:"{{PAGENAME}}"|QUERY}}%29+IN+HTA+&SearchXML=%26amp%3Blt%3Badvanced%26amp%3Bgt%3B%26amp%3Blt%3Bsearchfor+field%3D%26amp%3Bgt%3B%28{{urlencode:"{{PAGENAME}}"|QUERY}}%29+IN+HTA+%26amp%3Blt%3B%2Fsearchfor%26amp%3Bgt%3B%26amp%3Blt%3B%2Fadvanced%26amp%3Bgt%3B&UserID=0&ShowPreviews=0&ShowPubmed=0&SearchSortField=0&SearchSortDirection=1&ShowSelected=0
Hmm, issues... Carl Fredrik talk 19:11, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
This template currently encloses the article title in quotes when searching pubmed. Should we append [Title/abstract]
immediately after the quotation marks in the pubmed search for reviews published in the last 5 years? This would filter out reviews that don't include the corresponding article's title in the title or abstract of a review.
Seppi333 (
Insert 2¢)
07:03, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
The link called "or to systematic reviews links to PubMed Health. In that page, they warn that "PubMed Health will be discontinued on October 31, 2018. Read more."
I'm not sure how this will affect the template, but perhaps this one link will need to be updated. Just a heads up!
-- Treetear ( talk) 11:18, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Can it be edited in the sense of adjusting which databases we recommend? Over all I think it's a very helpful template for medical article Talk pages. However, for psychiatric topics, the template does not mention crucial databases, such as PsycINFO and PTSDpubs. Can PTSDpubs be added to the template for trauma-related articles? And can PsychINFO be added for all psychology, psychiatry, mental health, and neuroscience articles? Thanks! - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 19:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
@
Markworthen and
Doc James: We could add a parameter something like |topic=Psyc
and then use that to indicate different databases. I'd be happy to knock up a sandbox version for testing if somebody would like to give a (short) list of links for psychiatric topics, and an indication of where in the template they ought to display, please.
I've made a demo of the simplest possible layout in Template:Reliable sources for medical articles/sandbox:
{{Reliable sources for medical articles/sandbox |topic=}}
→Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically
review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Reliable sources for medical articles.
|
{{Reliable sources for medical articles/sandbox |topic=psy}}
→Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically
review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Reliable sources for medical articles.
|
{{Reliable sources for medical articles/sandbox |topic=Psychiatry}}
→Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically
review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Reliable sources for medical articles.
|
{{Reliable sources for medical articles/sandbox |topic=Dermatology}}
→Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically
review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Reliable sources for medical articles.
|
The parameter reads the first three characters of the topic name and is case-insensitive. -- RexxS ( talk) 15:04, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
https://search.proquest.com/ptsdpubs/index
. Resource links:
About PTSDpubs;
PTSDpubs FAQ;
"Ask a librarian" - National Center for PTSD Reference Librarians;
ProQuest Search tips.
- Mark D Worthen PsyD
(talk)
03:25, 15 November 2018 (UTC)This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove the "|link=" from the image File:Library.svg. The license of the image is Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported and we may use the image under the condition that we "give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made." Christian75 ( talk) 07:37, 21 May 2022 (UTC)