Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Since Wikipedia's readers may make medical decisions based on information found in our articles, [1] we want to use high-quality sources when writing about biomedical information. Many sources that are acceptable for other types of information under Wikipedia's general sourcing guideline , such as the popular press, are not suitable sources for ...
The popular press is generally not a reliable source for scientific and medical information in articles. Most medical news articles fail to discuss important issues such as evidence quality, [27] costs, and risks versus benefits, [28] and news articles too often convey wrong or misleading information about health care. [29]
That this perspective tends to dominate the evidence-based practice literature makes the merit of qualitative research unclear;" 1 Some people view qualitative research as less beneficial and effective, with its lack of numbers, the fact that it is "feeling-based" research, makes the opponents associate it with bias. Nevertheless, the ability ...
Research papers are primary sources; although they normally contain previous-work sections that are secondary sources, these sections are typically less reliable than reviews. A general narrative review of a subject by an expert in the field makes a good secondary source that can be used to cover various aspects of a subject within a Wikipedia ...
A 2004 editorial in the Canadian Medical Association Journal noted that Cochrane reviews appear to be more up to date and of better quality than other reviews, describing them as "the best single resource for methodologic research and for developing the science of meta-epidemiology" and crediting them with leading to methodological improvements in the medical literature.
Ideal sources for these articles include comprehensive reviews in independent, reliable published sources, such as reputable scientific journals, statements and reports from reputable expert bodies, widely recognized standard textbooks and handbooks written by experts in a field, expert-curated databases and reference material, or high-quality ...
Clinical research is different from clinical practice: in clinical practice, established treatments are used to improve the condition of a person, while in clinical research, evidence is collected under rigorous study conditions on groups of people to determine the efficacy and safety of a treatment.
In biostatistics, strength of evidence is the strength of a conducted study that can be assessed in health care interventions, e.g. to identify effective health care programs and evaluate the quality of the research in health care.