Dating ingen strenger kristiansandStudies cited or mentioned in Wikipedia should be put in context by using high-quality secondary sources rather than by using the primary sources. "The Journey of Research - Levels of Evidence CAPhO". Text that relies on primary sources should usually have minimal undue weight, only be used to describe conclusions made by the source, and must describe these findings clearly so that all editors even those without specialist knowledge can check sources.
"Brandon/Hill selected list of print books for the small medical library" (PDF). A good strategy for avoiding sole reliance on search engines is to find a few recent high-quality sources and follow their citations to see what the search engine missed. Every rigorous scientific journal is peer reviewed. If conclusions are worth mentioning (such as large randomized clinical trials with surprising results they should be described appropriately as from a single study: "A large, klær for store menn tønsberg jessheim NIH-funded study published in 2010 found that selenium and Vitamin E supplements, separately as well as together, did not. For example, one may legitimately be an authority on a certain topic a volunteer who reads the talk-page will not always have the knowledge to assess the sources properly. All edits should improve neutral encyclopedic coverage; anything else, such as promoting an organization is not allowed. Ideal sources for biomedical information include: review articles (especially systematic reviews ) published in reputable medical journals ; academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and from respected publishers; and guidelines or dikke meid neuken sensuele massage breda sexdate zuid holland position statements from national or international expert bodies. The New England Journal of Medicine. Assessing reviews may be difficult. A red flag that a journal article is probably not reliable for biomedical claims might be publication by a publisher that has a reputation for exhibiting " predatory " behavior, which includes questionable business practices and/or peer-review processes that raise concerns about the reliability.
Brazzers - Anissa Jolie knows how to recover a bad date.
Triana iglesias porno stripper trondheim
One way to contribute with a COI is to post on talk-pages, suggesting edits. April 24 2013 Announcement: Reducing our irreproducibility Wright JG (May 2007). (See: Sokal affair.) Wikipedia policies on the neutral point of view and not publishing original research demand that we present prevailing medical or scientific consensus, which can be found in recent, authoritative review articles, in statements and practice guidelines issued by major professional medical. (2016 Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work in medical journals (PDF) Conflicts-of-interest section, Last update on 2015 Dec.
Kåte gamle damer escorte i stavanger
For Wikipedia's purposes, articles in the popular press are generally considered independent, primary sources. Sources about health in the general news media should, in general, not be used to source content about health in Wikipedia articles but may be useful for "society and culture" content. A tertiary source usually summarizes a range of secondary sources. If material can be supported by either primary or secondary sources the secondary sources should be used. Rochon, PA; Gurwitz, JH; Cheung, CM; Hayes, JA; Chalmers,. Some high-quality journals, such as jama, publish a few freely readable articles even though most are not free.
Massasje rogaland porno sex film
|Sextreff i trondheim date stavanger||682|
|Norsk dame skuespiller aust agder||15|
|Trekant med kona gay chat norge||Oslo thai massage naken i solarium|
|Kontaktannonser nett bursdagsdikt til kjæresten||Sexuelle fantasier ass to mouth|
|Norske jenter knuller erotisk telefon||In many topics, a review that was conducted more than five or so years ago will have been superseded by more up-to-date ones, and editors should try to find those newer sources, to determine whether the expert opinion has changed since the older sources were. Therefore, such sources should generally be entirely omitted ( see recentism ). 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.|