Hemsida postorderfru butt sexNewspapers and magazines may also publish articles about scientific results before those results have been published in a peer-reviewed journal or reproduced by other experimenters. According to the conflict of interest policy conflicts of interest (COI) must be disclosed. However, books published by university presses or the National Academy of Sciences, tend to be well-researched and useful for most purposes. "Potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open-access publishers". How to Read a Paper: The Basics of Evidence-based Medicine (3rd.). Prefer recent reviews to older primary sources on the same topic. Basic advice edit Respect secondary sources edit Further information: Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary and secondary sources Primary sources should not be cited with intent of "debunking contradicting, or countering any conclusions made by secondary sources. Remember to avoid WP:original research by only using the best possible sources, and avoid weasel words and phrases by tying together separate statements with "however "this is not supported by etc. Editors should not perform detailed academic peer review. In addition, most self-published books or books published by vanity presses undergo no independent fact-checking or peer review and, consequently, are not reliable sources.
This guideline is not general in nature, but specifically concerns quality when used as a source for encyclopedic articles on Wikipedia. Sources that are ruled out social ledsagare oralsex nära växjö for use on Wikipedia may still be very useful for other purposes. Narrative reviews often set out to provide a general summary of a topic based on a survey of the literature, which can be useful when outlining a topic. Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content as such sources often include unreliable or preliminary information, for example early in vitro results which don't hold in later clinical trials. "suny Downstate EBM Tutorial". Several formal systems exist for assessing the quality of available evidence on medical subjects. The reliability of these sources ranges from formal scientific reports, which can be the equal of the best reviews published in medical journals, through public guides and service announcements, which have the advantage of being freely readable, but are generally less authoritative than the underlying. Ensure that the book is up to date, unless a historical perspective is required. Symposia and supplements to academic journals are commonly sponsored by industry groups with a financial interest in the outcome of the research reported. Use your best judgement when writing about topics where you may have a conflict of interest: citing yourself on Wikipedia is problematic. Mies, ei 31, tampere 48 19:05, karkki, nainen, kyllä. "A practical guide to assigning levels of evidence". It can also be helpful to perform a plain web search rather than one of scholarly articles only. 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. For example, a page that is tagged as "Comment" or "Letter" is a non-peer-reviewed letter to the editor. Studies cited or mentioned in Wikipedia should be put in context by using high-quality secondary sources rather than by using the primary sources. 12 Systematic reviews of literature of overall good quality and consistency, addressing specific recommendation, have less reliability when they include non-randomized studies. If recent reviews do not mention an older primary source, the older source is dubious. Rosmarakis ES, Soteriades ES, Vergidis PI, Kasiakou SK, Falagas ME (May 2005). Roughly in descending order of quality, lower-quality evidence in medical research comes from individual RCTs; other controlled studies; quasi-experimental studies; non-experimental, prospective, observational studies, such as cohort studies and case control studies; cross-sectional studies (surveys and other correlation studies such as ecological studies ; retrospective. This makes using up-to-date books even more important. Rochon, PA; Gurwitz, JH; Cheung, CM; Hayes, JA; Chalmers,. Respect the levels of evidence: Do not reject a high-quality type of study (e.g., a meta-analysis) in favor of a source from lower levels of evidence (e.g., any primary source) because of personal objections to the inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, or conclusions in the. These instructions are appropriate for actively researched areas with many primary sources and several reviews and may need to be relaxed in areas where little progress is being made or where few reviews are published. A general narrative review of a subject by an expert in the field can make a good secondary source covering various aspects of a subject within a Wikipedia article. A tertiary source usually summarizes a range of secondary sources. Li G, Abbade LP, Nwosu I, Jin Y, Leenus A, Maaz M, Wang M, Bhatt M, Zielinski L, Sanger N, Bantoto B, Luo C, Shams I, Shahid H, Chang Y, Sun G, Mbuagbaw L, Samaan Z, Levine MA, Adachi JD, Thabane L (December 2017). 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 incomplete 20 and typically less useful or reliable than reviews or other sources, such.
Escortgirls stockholm svenska sex sidor
- Leksaker för vuxna bastu i stockholm
- Reife alte damen geile frauen zeigen sich
- Nana thai massage sex knul
- Dejtingsidor för unga under 18 år strängnäs
Nubile Films Game Time! Touchdown My Pants S28:E29.
Pregnant escort sex med äldre damer
However, in vitro and animal-model findings do not translate consistently into clinical effects in human beings. "Scientists' Elusive Goal: Reproducing Study Results". 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 are published in a reasonable amount. If challenged by another editor in good faith, the primary source should be supplemented with a more appropriate source. Every rigorous scientific journal is peer reviewed. 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.