Template:MEDRS evaluation

Evaluation of qualities in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine):

Source:
Date of publication: , 0 seconds ago.
Journal name: '
Publisher's name:
Journal reputation:
Primary vs secondary:
Evidence level (see PubMed's list of types): ?
Pre-clinical vs human:
Independence:

Template documentation[view] [edit] [history] [purge]

How to use

 {{MEDRS evaluation
 | source =
 | date = 
 | journal =
 | publisher = 
 | reputation = 
 | type = 
 | evidence = 
 | human = 
 | independence = }}

If you are in the Reply tool's visual mode, you can copy and paste this short code: {{MEDRS evaluation}} and then click on the resulting empty list to fill in your answers.

For example, this code:

{{MEDRS evaluation
| source = "Denpasar Declaration on Population and Development" {{PMID|1234567}}
| date =  2018
| journal = New England Journal of Medicine
| publisher = Wiley (publisher)
| reputation = Highly ranked journal per https://www.scopus.com/sourceid/16590
| type = secondary
| evidence = review
| human = no
| independence = yes }}

will produce this result:

Evaluation of qualities in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine):

Source: "Denpasar Declaration on Population and Development" PMID 1234567
Date of publication: 2018, 6 years ago. Consider whether a newer source would be better.
Journal name: New England Journal of Medicine
Publisher's name: Y Wiley is one of the largest publishers of academic journals. Some Wiley sources are available via Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library.
Journal reputation: Highly ranked journal per https://www.scopus.com/sourceid/16590
Primary vs secondary: Y Secondary sources are best for many purposes.
Evidence level (see PubMed's list of types): Y Review article
Pre-clinical vs human: N Research only in animals or tissues is not usually appropriate.
Independence: Y Independent sources are best.

When to use

Use this in discussions to organize information about sources that are being discussed. Remember that a source does not have to be "perfect" to be useful, and that a source could be an "ideal" type in theory but still inappropriate in the context of a particular claim. Editors must always use their best judgment, especially when real-world facts are unclear.

TemplateData

Use this template to organize facts and editors' assessments in discussions about medicine-related sources.

Template parameters[Edit template data]
This template prefers block formatting of parameters.
Parameter		Description	Type	Status
Title of source	`source`	Add the name of the source. Supports URLs and templates such as {{PMID}} and {{DOI}}. Example "Denpasar Declaration on Population and Development" {{PMID\|1234567}}	Unknown	suggested
Date	`date`	Date of publication. Supports most date formats. Example 2018	Date	suggested
Journal	`journal`	Name of the journal, if relevant Example New England Journal of Medicine	Page name	suggested
Publisher	`publisher`	Name of publisher Example Wiley (publisher)	Page name	suggested
Journal or publisher reputation	`reputation`	Add your description. Include links to sources. Read [[Wikipedia:Impact factor]] Example Highly ranked journal per https://www.scopus.com/sourceid/16590	Unknown	suggested
Source classification	`type`	Primary, secondary, or tertiary? Suggested values `primary` `secondary` `tertiary` `uncertain` Example secondary	Content	suggested
Is it a review?	`evidence`	Level of evidence by source type. Type can usually be found in [[PubMed]]. Suggested values `review` `systematic` `narrative` `literature` `meta-analysis` `guideline` `practice guideline` `textbook` `reference` `case study` `clinical trial` `conference` `commentary` `editorial` `interview` `letter` `news` `oped` `patent` `popular press` `preprint` `press release` `randomized controlled trial` `retracted` `self-published` `social media` Example review	Unknown	suggested
Study subjects	`human`	Was this research done on humans? Example yes	Boolean	optional
Independence	`independence`	Is this an independent source, without significant conflicts of interest? Example yes	Boolean	optional

The above documentation is transcluded from Template:MEDRS evaluation/doc.
Editors can experiment in this template's sandbox and testcases pages.
Add categories to the /doc subpage. Subpages of this template.