Jump to content

Template:MEDRS evaluation/doc

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How to use

[edit]
 {{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. red-outlined triangle containing exclamation point  Consider whether a newer source would be better.
  • Journal name: New England Journal of Medicine
  • Publisher's name: checkY 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: checkY Secondary sources are best for many purposes.
  • Evidence level (see PubMed's list of types): checkY Review article
  • Pre-clinical vs human: ☒N Research only in animals or tissues is not usually appropriate.
  • Independence: checkY Independent sources are best.


When to use

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

Template parameters

This template prefers block formatting of parameters.

ParameterDescriptionTypeStatus
Title of sourcesource

Add the name of the source. Supports URLs and templates such as {{PMID}} and {{DOI}}.

Example
"Denpasar Declaration on Population and Development" {{PMID|1234567}}
Unknownsuggested
Datedate

Date of publication. Supports most date formats.

Example
2018
Datesuggested
Journaljournal

Name of the journal, if relevant

Example
New England Journal of Medicine
Page namesuggested
Publisherpublisher

Name of publisher

Example
Wiley (publisher)
Page namesuggested
Journal or publisher reputationreputation

Add your description. Include links to sources. Read [[Wikipedia:Impact factor]]

Example
Highly ranked journal per https://www.scopus.com/sourceid/16590
Unknownsuggested
Source classificationtype

Primary, secondary, or tertiary?

Suggested values
primary secondary tertiary uncertain
Example
secondary
Contentsuggested
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
Unknownsuggested
Study subjectshuman

Was this research done on humans?

Example
yes
Booleanoptional
Independenceindependence

Is this an independent source, without significant conflicts of interest?

Example
yes
Booleanoptional