This page is a redirect. The following categories are used to track and monitor this redirect:
|
dopaminergic neurotoxicity of MDMA and the Schön scandal.) Shortcut WP:MEDSCIWP:MEDSCI Scientific journals are the best place to find both primary and secondary...
Click to read more »gov/population/www/pop-profile/disabil.html (790, 25252, 1, -3) www.medsci.org/v04p0153.htm (790, 52, 2, 1) www.medsci.org/v04p0153.htm (790, 52, 2, 1) www.disabilityhistory...
Click to read more »(also - MEDMOS#Careful language bullet 8), WP:MEDDATE, WP:MEDPRI, and WP:MEDSCI must be satisfied). Information in a drug article is about humans, unless...
Click to read more »short-term study on a small number of subjects", not qualifying for WP:MEDSCI and WP:MEDASSESS. A Cochrane review reference, at that time 14 years old...
Click to read more »Wikipedia article doesn't answer the question for mammals. Second, the medsci.org item does, but it actually contrasts long tails with "short or no tails"...
Click to read more »De la donnéeà l’information" Med Sci (Paris). 34:1100–1104 doi:10.1051/medsci/2018291 Horner & Minifie (2011). "Research Ethics II: Mentoring, Collaboration...
Click to read more »the contrary. There has been no contradiction here between WP:IDHT and WP:MEDSCI; we're adhering to both policies if we TBAN Epiphyllumlover from abortion...
Click to read more »fr:Salebot (talk - contribs) to fr:Ãthiopie (diff). Links: ist.inserm.fr/BASIS/medsci/fqmb/export/DDD/422.pdf www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3230,36-774960@45-1...
Click to read more »67827) to Science in the Middle Ages (diff) - Link: members.aol.com/McNelis/medsci_index.html. * User is on global Whitelist: cluebot <-> * (Bots don't have...
Click to read more »the French original in Médecine/Sciences Paris (https://doi.org/10.1051/medsci/2020123), a reputable medical journal published by the French National Institute...
Click to read more »generally less authoritative than the underlying medical literature. WP:MEDSCI states that (emphasis mine):[23] Wikipedia policies on the neutral point...
Click to read more »the periphery of the scope of the publication, raising a red flag per WP:MEDSCI, and has been cited exactly once.[12] Fladrif (talk) 20:30, 24 January 2012...
Click to read more »September 2011 (UTC) Writing it from a historical context implies that WP:MEDSCI doesn't apply. Likewise, it appears that you agree that WP:RS is more appropriate...
Click to read more »De la donnéeà l’information" Med Sci (Paris). 34:1100–1104 doi:10.1051/medsci/2018291 Horner & Minifie (2011). "Research Ethics II: Mentoring, Collaboration...
Click to read more »matters where a biomedical claim is published -- see the third sentence of WP:MEDSCI. Even if you don't agree that this falls under MEDRS, it should be obvious...
Click to read more »inflicting them on baffled students."[[39]] RC Tallis, MA, MRCP, FRCP, F MedSci, DLitt, was Professor of Geriatric Medicine, University of Manchester, Manchester...
Click to read more »on the claim being made. Ramos1990 (talk) 17:07, 23 June 2019 (UTC) WP:MEDSCI allows monographs. However, if systematic reviews or guidelines are available...
Click to read more »journal article is only a reliable source when making medical claims. WP:MEDSCI tells us to "Be careful of material published in a journal.... that reports...
Click to read more »in convincing others to support their claims or join their theories. WP:MEDSCI: "Although significant-minority views are welcome in Wikipedia, such views...
Click to read more »quoted above, MEDSCI relies on "respected governmental... health authorities... in textbooks, or in scholarly monographs," for which MEDSCI would include...
Click to read more »the OPV AIDS hypothesis RS - if kept explicitly within the bounds of WP:MEDSCI "Although significant-minority views are welcome in Wikipedia, such views...
Click to read more »Journal of Medical Sciences (wp gwp g | eb 1911 co en gct sw) http://www.medsci.org/index.htm ISSN 1449-1907 Internet Health: Journal of Research, Application...
Click to read more »read multiple pages that our articles referred to (but in reviewing WP:MEDSCI I'm no expert in whether or not they were biased), but I can't rely on a...
Click to read more »WP:MEDRS when it intersects, with the normal and customary WP:RSCONTEXT and WP:MEDSCI caveats? This a first quartile (5.923 impact factor), Scopus-indexed, peer-reviewed...
Click to read more »appropriate source for current UK guidance, that is explicitly WP:MEDRS per WP:MEDSCI would be the guidance, standards, and pathways published by NICE. It will...
Click to read more »(contribs, talk) edited Menadione (diff, hist) Added links: http://www.medsci.org/v05p0062.htm, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15868379, http://jn...
Click to read more »available tools we have to ascertain the medical/scientific consensus per WP:MEDSCI and WP:MEDASSESS. Frontiers journals do have a lower degree of reliability...
Click to read more »"controversy" to avoid blurring that distinction. We learn in Wikipedia:MEDSCI#Summarize_scientific_consensus that "Finally, make readers aware of any...
Click to read more »evidence for using oral lavender oil to treat anxiety. Further, there is no WP:MEDSCI source to indicate any clinical organization recommends such treatment....
Click to read more »talk) edited Mescaline (diff, hist) Added links: http://mescaline.com/medsci/catsdopsero.html 23:04:31 (3, 2, 4) (EDIT) User:173.80.205.117 (contribs...
Click to read more »(medicine). Of importance to this dispute would be the sections; WP:MEDDEF, WP:MEDSCI, and WP:MEDDATE.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:27, 1 January 2017 (UTC) Volunteer...
Click to read more »WP:MEDPRI: It's a secondary source (specifically, a systematic review). WP:MEDSCI: Archives of Dermatological Research is a peer-reviewed medical journal...
Click to read more »right to freedom of expression. [18] Because of problems like this, WP:MEDSCI warns be careful of material published in disreputable journals or disreputable...
Click to read more »WP:MEDRS, especially when the claims they are making are extraordinary. See WP:MEDSCI, WP:MEDASSESS, and WP:MEDPOP. There is no justification to list such sources...
Click to read more »PMID 37505898 doesn't have it tagged that way), so it's a secondary source. WP:MEDSCI: The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease is okay. It's a middle-quintile...
Click to read more »position statements from national or international expert bodies. WP:MEDRS/WP:MEDSCI: Be careful of material published in journals lacking peer review or that...
Click to read more »