This page is a redirect. The following categories are used to track and monitor this redirect:
|
not clearly made by the authors (see WP:Synthesis). Shortcuts WP:MEDPRIWP:MEDPRI WP:MEDREVWP:MEDREV Primary sources should not be cited with the intent of...
Click to read more »scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Single study (WP:MEDPRI, without notability for its own article, study never completed due to failure...
Click to read more »citing in these situations, but it does have one very relevant rule at WP:MEDPRI: Primary sources should not be cited with intent of "debunking", contradicting...
Click to read more »WP:MEDANIMAL (also - MEDMOS#Careful language bullet 8), WP:MEDDATE, WP:MEDPRI, and WP:MEDSCI must be satisfied). Information in a drug article is about...
Click to read more »me as rather leading, as does the wording of the questions.) This is WP:MEDPRI at best. The other journal article cited is another primary source[5]. Those...
Click to read more »assess its safety and effectiveness. And, according to guidelines like WP:MEDPRI, findings are frequently highlighted in the media immediately after initial...
Click to read more »to debunk secondary sources is also a clear and direct violation of WP:MEDPRI. Read the very first sentence in that section. The second scenario is possible...
Click to read more »objects because it is a primary source, I think it is noteworthy as per WP:MEDPRI as it is noteworthy for several reasons, in particular the fact that it...
Click to read more »citing in these situations, but it does have one very relevant rule at WP:MEDPRI: Primary sources should not be cited with intent of "debunking", contradicting...
Click to read more »to debunk secondary sources is also a clear and direct violation of WP:MEDPRI. Read the very first sentence in that section. The second scenario is possible...
Click to read more »me as rather leading, as does the wording of the questions.) This is WP:MEDPRI at best. The other journal article cited is another primary source[16]....
Click to read more »out that we do have science-specific policy statements about this. See WP:MEDPRI. Policy pages like this are needed because certain sciences, particularly...
Click to read more »scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Single study (WP:MEDPRI, without notability for its own article, study never completed due to failure...
Click to read more »under Wikipedia's biomedical information sourcing regime. Please see WP:MEDPRI. The gold standard is either a comprehensive literature review (cited in...
Click to read more »primary sources as generally should not be used for medical content but per MEDPRI "Primary sources should not be cited with intent of "debunking", contradicting...
Click to read more »diseases articles on Medscape are peer-reviewed and compatible with WP:MEDPRI. Even though an RfC would be more appropriate to establish this sort of...
Click to read more »WP:SOURCE, WP:SCHOLARSHIP, WP:RSPRIMARY, WP:MEDANIMAL, WP:BESTSOURCES, WP:MEDPRI (policies and guidelines) and WP:RSE, WP:SCIRS, WP:RSUW (essays). I am not...
Click to read more »reviews, or clinical recommendations by governmental authorities. See WP:MEDPRI. MarshallKe (talk) 19:03, 6 April 2022 (UTC) Thank you, that's the sort...
Click to read more »of significant size and importance to merit a mention as outlined in WP:MEDPRI. Zefr has objected to this based on assumptions that are factually wrong...
Click to read more »for whether a secondary source was "done correctly" is WP:MEDRS, and WP:MEDPRI explicitly states primary sources should not be used to counter conclusions...
Click to read more »be of much use in contradicting secondary sources in the article per WP:MEDPRI, not to mention the obvious CoI implications. --RexxS (talk) 16:23, 26 July...
Click to read more »COVID-19 pandemic. What we've disagreed on is this: Do WP:REPUTABLE, WP:MEDPRI, and WP:BLPSTYLE say we should cite a secondary RS about what research to...
Click to read more »another. Source: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38085369/ Type per WP:MEDPRI: It's a secondary source (specifically, a systematic review). WP:MEDSCI:...
Click to read more »Thanks. Yesterday, all my dreams... (talk) 05:43, 30 November 2025 (UTC) WP:MEDPRI discourages editors from citing clinical trials, so editors therefore have...
Click to read more »Bondegezou (talk) 14:54, 11 October 2024 (UTC) About this article: WP:MEDPRI: The article type is a narrative review (though PMID 37505898 doesn't have...
Click to read more »primary research - it is whether it meets the criteria specified in WP:MEDPRI to permit inclusion. Lavender_oil#Uses current wording: A 2021 meta-analysis...
Click to read more »under Wikipedia's biomedical information sourcing regime. Please see WP:MEDPRI. The gold standard is either a comprehensive literature review (cited in...
Click to read more »assess its safety and effectiveness. And, according to guidelines like WP:MEDPRI, findings are frequently highlighted in the media immediately after initial...
Click to read more »sentence is a 5-part health claim constructed from primary research; under WP:MEDPRI - "Primary sources should not be aggregated or presented without context...
Click to read more »