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:
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, 7 years ago.
Consider whether a newer source would be better. - Journal name: New England Journal of Medicine
- Publisher's name:
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: Secondary sources are best for many purposes.
- Evidence level (see PubMed's list of types): Review article
- Pre-clinical vs human:
Research only in animals or tissues is not usually appropriate. - Independence: Independent sources are best.
The |reputation= field is a free-form text field. Consider including information about whether the journal is indexed by MEDLINE or its Index Medicus subset, what the Wikipedia:Impact factors are, and/or what the Scopus rankings are.
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.
| Parameter | Description | Type | Status | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Title of source | source | Add the name of the source. Supports URLs and templates such as {{PMID}} and {{DOI}}.
| Unknown | suggested |
| Date | date | Date of publication. Supports most date formats.
| Date | suggested |
| Journal | journal | Name of the journal, if relevant
| Page name | suggested |
| Publisher | publisher | Name of publisher
| Page name | suggested |
| Journal or publisher reputation | reputation | Add your description. Include links to sources. Read [[Wikipedia:Impact factor]]
| Unknown | suggested |
| Source classification | type | Primary, secondary, or tertiary?
| Content | suggested |
| Is it a review? | evidence | Level of evidence by source type. Type can usually be found in [[PubMed]].
| Unknown | suggested |
| Study subjects | human | Was this research done on humans?
| Boolean | optional |
| Independence | independence | Is this an independent source, without significant conflicts of interest?
| Boolean | optional |