Wikipedia talk:Why MEDRS?

Suggestions

An interesting essay that as you point out needs to be significantly condensed. One area that I think should be trimmed is the discussion about the difficulty of "understanding" biological systems. While it is nice to know why something works, it is far more important that we are certain that it does work. Points that I think should be emphasized are:

(1) Translation between in vitro and in vivo is imperfect.

(2) Because of between species differences in physiology, results in animals often do not translate into humans. Animals models are just that, imperfect models that often do not capture essential features of human diseases. (All models are wrong, some are useful).

(3) Much published preclinical research cannot be reproduced:

• Ioannidis JP (2005). "Why most published research findings are false". PLOS Med. 2 (8): e124. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124. PMC 1182327. PMID 16060722.
• Prinz F, Schlange T, Asadullah K (2011). "Believe it or not: how much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets?". Nat Rev Drug Discov. 10 (9): 712. doi:10.1038/nrd3439-c1. PMID 21892149.
• Begley CG, Ellis LM (2012). "Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research". Nature. 483 (7391): 531–3. Bibcode:2012Natur.483..531B. doi:10.1038/483531a. PMID 22460880.

(4) The conclusions of clinical trials frequently contradict each other:

• Ioannidis JP (2005). "Contradicted and initially stronger effects in highly cited clinical research". JAMA. 294 (2): 218–28. doi:10.1001/jama.294.2.218. PMID 16014596. S2CID 16749356. even the most highly cited randomized trials may be challenged and refuted over time, especially small ones

Boghog (talk) 13:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you!! One of these days I need to pass over this and finish it already. I will definitely incorporate that stuff. Thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 13:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Boghog I just incorporated this stuff. Thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 18:24, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

HealthNewsReview

This article could do with a link to the HealthNewsReview website, which is terrific at unpicking overblown news stories with a health angle. They do a wonderful job. JFW | T@lk 09:27, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Review required for this edit.

Could you guys help review this edit to see if it complies with the standard of WP:MEDANIMAL and Wikipedia:Why_MEDRS?? This is beyond my knowledge. Thanks. --Envisaging tier (talk) 09:52, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Envisaging tier - that should have been an easy one to reject. It's a 1985 report (WP:MEDDATE) on rats (WP:MEDANIMAL, WP:PRIMARY) for a section implying a 'health effect' on longevity of humans. When seeing such a statement and weak source, better to reject outright and direct the editor to the talk page to try defending it. --Zefr (talk) 15:52, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the knowledge you've imparted! --Envisaging tier (talk) 16:48, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Maybe it depends on the sort of statement needing support.

It seems to me that you ought to distinguish a statement like "Vitamin Z cures the common cold" from a statement like "Scientists are investigating/hypothesising that Vitamin Z cures the common cold". Your arguments explain why primary literature may be unsuitable to reference the first sort of statement. But I don't see why citing primary research papers is not adequate to support the second. Reporting current directions of research or controversies seems to me entirely within Wikipedia's remit, but waiting for a review may mean that these topics don't get covered. Citing a couple of prominent papers from the primary literature that argue against each other seems entirely adequate evidence that a controversy exists. Jmchutchinson (talk) 22:05, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

We certainly should. This is subject to WP:RSCONTEXT and should be honored. The distinction should be clear. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 00:07, 6 December 2021 (UTC)