Norsk pornostjerner escort service in oslo"Communicating medical news-pitfalls of health care journalism". Then it is better to follow ordinary editing protocol, disclosing any COI and to be careful not to overemphasize your own sources. If an editor has access to both the original source and the summary, and finds both helpful, it is good practice to cite both sources together (see: Citing medical sources for details). If recent reviews do not mention an older primary source, the older source is dubious. Cooper BE, Lee WE, Goldacre BM, Sanders TA (August 2012). April 24 2013 Announcement: Reducing our irreproducibility Wright JG (May 2007). Their name is somewhat of a misnomer as they do not need to concern "technology" as perceived by the public but rather any intervention intended to improve health. 28 Major academic publishers (e.g., Elsevier, Springer Verlag, Wolters Kluwer, and Informa ) publish specialized medical book series with good editorial oversight; volumes in these series summarize the latest research in narrow areas, usually in a more extensive format than journal reviews. Templates edit See also edit References edit Laurent MR, Vickers TJ (2009). It typically takes experience and practice to recognize when a search has not been effective; even if an editor finds useful sources, they may have missed other sources that would have been more useful or they may generate pages and pages of less-than-useful material. For example, popular science magazines such as New Scientist and Scientific American are not peer reviewed, but sometimes feature articles that explain medical subjects in plain English. For example, results of an early-stage clinical trial would not be appropriate in the Treatment section on a disease because future treatments have little bearing on current practice.
Polish escort girls norsk chatroulette
One way to contribute with a COI is to post on talk-pages, suggesting edits. 14 15 "Assessing evidence quality" means editors should determine quality of the type of study. "Seeking health information online: does Wikipedia matter?". "Scientists' Elusive Goal: Reproducing Study Results". A general narrative review of a subject by an expert in oslo sex guide gutt søker gutt the field can make a good secondary source covering various aspects of a subject within a Wikipedia article. Yet, they are widely used among those seeking health information. However, they normally contain introductory, background, or review sections that place their research in the context of previous work; these sections may be cited in Wikipedia with care: they are often international dating sites knulle treff incomplete 20 and typically less useful or reliable. "Open access and accuracy: author-archived manuscripts. A reason to avoid primary sources in the biomedical field especially papers reporting results of in vitro experiments is that they are often not replicable 2 3 4 and are therefore unsuitable for use in generating encyclopedic, reliable biomedical content. Guidelines by major medical and scientific organizations sometimes clash with one another (for example, the World Health Organization and American Heart Association on salt intake which should be resolved in accordance with WP:weight. Some high-quality journals, such as jama, publish a few freely readable articles even though most are not free. When writing about medical claims not supported by mainstream research, it is vital that third-party, independent sources be used. Using secondary sources then allows facts to be stated with greater reliability: "Neither vitamin E nor selenium decreases the risk of prostate cancer and vitamin E may increase." (citing pmid ) If no reviews on the subject. (See: Martin Rimm.) Be careful of material published in disreputable journals or disreputable fields. Further reading edit Greenhalgh T (2006). Where in vitro and animal-model data are cited on Wikipedia, it should be clear to the reader that the data are pre-clinical, and the article call girls stavanger kristen chat text should avoid stating or implying that reported findings hold true in humans.
Tantra massage gøteborg prostitusjon tromsø
- Shemale escort norway eskorte jenter kristiansand.
- Stockholm Thai Massasje Tønsberg Kåt, Girls Casual dating og sex nord trondelag - Sjelevenn askim Videoer bilder jenter som.
- British mature porn lesbisk erotikk - kan også For deg nakne norske cfnm få til barna her ass xxx norsk vinstra land, British Mature Porn Lesbisk, eller fire måneder et jenter.
- Anal slave gratis erotisk film.
- Hot thai dame i Oslo søker gentlemen å date, kose, massere med.
Jessheim dating program for single menn yngre 20
"How we rate stories". Every rigorous scientific journal is peer reviewed. It arises in part due to financial interests that compete within medicine. Begley CG, Ellis LM (March 2012). 35 There are basic and advanced options for searching PubMed. Claims of bias should be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and are not reason to omit sources without consensus instead, qualify sources with information of why a source may be biased, and who is calling it biased. Additionally, popular science books are useful sources, but generally should not be referenced on Wikipedia to support medical statements (see #Popular press ). Also, a few sources are in the public domain ; these include many.S. 17 Indications that an article was published in a supplement may be fairly subtle; for instance, a letter "s" added to a page number, 18 or "Suppl." in a reference. Undergraduate or graduate level textbooks, edited scientific books, lay scientific books, and encyclopedias are examples of tertiary sources.
Eskorte piker norsk eskorte bergen
32 News articles also tend neither to report adequately on the scientific methodology and the experimental error, nor to express risk in meaningful terms. An evaluation of 500 stories". Assess evidence quality edit When writing about treatment efficacy, knowledge about the quality of the evidence helps distinguish between minor and major views, determine due weight, and identify accepted evidence-based information. While the most-recent reviews include later research results, this does not automatically give more weight to the most recent review (see recentism ). 1 (dead link) For medical information, the most useful types of articles are typically labeled "Guideline "Meta-analysis "Practice guideline or "Review". Many, but not all, papers published in medical journals are primary sources for facts about the research and discoveries made. Robinson KA, Goodman SN (January 2011). A few, such as Evidence-based Dentistry ( issn publish third-party summaries of reviews and guidelines published elsewhere.