Wikipedia:Training/For students/Medical topics 2
 | This Wikipedia page has been superseded by training content on dashboard.wikiedu.org and outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org and is retained primarily for historical reference. |
Wikipedia Training
Medical topics
Identifying reliable medical sources
What makes a good, reliable source for a medical article? For medicine, a single research study -- no matter how popular it may be in newspapers or blog posts -- is not relevant for Wikipedia until a medical consensus has emerged. This can be difficult to track on your own, which is why the medical community on Wikipedia strongly discourages the use of primary sources.
Good sources...
- summarize secondary sources or many primary sources.
- provide an overview of the current understanding of the topic.
- combine the results of several studies.
Good resources:
- literature reviews or systematic reviews found in reputable medical journals
- academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant field, from a respected publisher
- medical guidelines or position statements from nationally or internationally recognized expert bodies
- are independent and up-to-date, and typically not older than 5 years
Bad resources: Primary sources, where the author directly participated in the research, or documented their personal experiences (examining patients, for example), are not ready for Wikipedia. Avoid primary sources, including:
- Nearly all papers published in medical journals
- Popular press articles
- Blogs
You should read the full guideline on identifying reliable medical sources.
