Edit with VisualEditor

Hi

Could someone who knows the rules on medicine related articles please check Ayurveda (or at least the lead)? I see the article lead describes it as a 'therapy' which implies it has medical benefit.

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 06:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The lead of Ayurveda does not contain the word therapy. Did you link the wrong article? WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think they're referring to the part of the lead that says "Ayurveda therapies have varied and evolved over more than two millennia. Therapies include herbal medicines, special diets, meditation, yoga, massage, laxatives, enemas, and medical oils." Daphne Morrow (talk) 09:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that part, I though lead was the section before the first heading, maybe I'm wrong... John Cummings (talk) 17:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're right; it's just that when it wasn't in the first sentence, I used ⌘F to search, and searching for therapy doesn't find therapies on the page.

People sometimes use the word modalities in such cases. It's short for treatment modalities. More generally, I question whether calling something therapy really implies medical benefit (rather than medical intent), and whether these have no medical benefit. Yoga has the medical benefit of physical exercise; ayurvedic diets tend to be plant-forward, which has medical benefits; laxatives and enemas are medical treatments; meditation is a mainstream medical recommendation for people with ADHD, etc. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WhatamIdoing, thanks for your reply, I guess my association is that if something is theraputic then it has efficacy, which is very much is confict with the first paragraphy which says "The theory and practice of ayurveda is pseudoscientific and toxic metals such as lead are used as ingredients in many ayurvedic medicines". John Cummings (talk) 11:17, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@John Cummings from Therapy: "Not all therapies are effective. Many therapies can produce unwanted adverse effects." — soupvector (talk) 02:37, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at this page. It (previously a GA) was rewritten in full by a single person several months ago, and the current version has severe problems. Most of the page is reliant on only two citations, and spot checks of these citations fail. Major discussions of the topic, such as the medication that was generally considered first-line until recently, are completely missing.

This is a major medical topic with well over 100,000 page views per month, so I think speed should be a priority here. I personally think a reversion to the article revision before the destructive editing began, if possible, would be best. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 15:57, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the diff. The previous version was significantly out of date (e.g., sources from 20+ years ago). There's also been a Wikipedia:Peer review/Crohn's disease/archive2 of the new content. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:22, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Went ahead and did the reversion after comparing. Despite a large chunk of cites being out of date, the newer version was too unbalanced and left more gaps in the page. Given concerns raised in that peer review and on the talk page, without the contributor (or anyone else) actually arguing to retain the page, I interpreted most people as neutral or supporting the revert. @WhatamIdoing

It does still need some work though, you're right. I have a long plane flight soon, perhaps I can bring it up to speed. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 22:15, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

agree with reverting to long standing version, and agree current version can-of-beans did is the long standing version.

honest question (and i think ive seen it brought up before around village pump), how long does a version of an article have to stick around to become the long-standing version? apparently the other version was up for 4 months without anyone noticing. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:40, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, lots of people noticed. There was a prior thread at this project and also some stuff on the article's talk page. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 01:53, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blue, the more relevant question would be: What makes you think that matters? WP:QUO isn't a policy or guideline, and it doesn't say what most editors think it says. Fights over which version is The True™ Long-Standing Version are usually just a way to say that the version I prefer is the one that ought to be kept, and the version that you prefer is Not It.

See also m:The Wrong Version. Sometimes, all the versions are the wrong version. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:00, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

fair enough.

seen folks throw the "long standing version" idea around a bit, and i've used the phrase myself. thanks for the insight around what that phrase actually means. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 05:06, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct: We do talk this way.

QUO's goal is just to avoid an edit war while discussions are going on. For the most part, if an article was "like that" for the weeks/months/years before the attempt to improve it, then having it be wrong for a few more days is less damaging than having an edit war.

It should also not be taken as an absolute. Once upon a time, I was one of several editors involved in a dispute with a relative newcomer. The newcomer only participated in the discussion when we reverted to the disputed version. So for perhaps a week, the daily process was to see what they said yesterday, reply to what they said yesterday, and revert the article to the version they disliked. Then they would revert back and post a comment in the discussion. If we didn't revert, they didn't discuss. Our slow-motion edit war was necessary to make the discussion happen. (These days, we'd probably seek a partial block instead.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:19, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would any editors like to clarify if statements relating Biological sex and Intelligence should be supported by WP:MEDRS-compliant sources, in-line with what is currently expected at Talk:Intelligence quotient?

I would like to remove current primary sources and other non-WP:MEDRS-compliant sources from Sex and intelligence (at least when they are being used to back claims about sex and intelligence), while another users believes it would be more neutral to for us to consider the body of literature as a whole ourselves, including primary research articles, and to summarize them here on Wikipedia. Photos of Japan (talk) 18:55, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If a primary source hasn't been considered interesting or important enough to get picked up by any secondary source, then the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view is best achieved by omitting it. There are occasional exceptions (e.g., a study too recent to be reported), but as a general rule, neutrality is achieved by having reliable sources do the part about "considering the body of literature as a whole". It might be better to look for a graduate-level textbook chapter instead of trying to pick a review article.

With a brief glance over there, it looks like editors need to correct WP:MEDSAY violations as well. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:12, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. Also, I hadn't seen WP:MEDSAY, that is good to know for this article as well as going forward. Photos of Japan (talk) 03:06, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to point out that the article series on sex and various features have been in violation of MEDRS since at least 2014. I think they could do with some reworking, and yes I believe MEDRS should apply to a large extent. CFCF (talk) 13:32, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• per https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/major-tuberculosis-outbreak-hits-kansas-city-area-2025-01-29/ we may need an artilce on this(as its one of the largest outbreaks ever)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:24, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  For those not familiar with the geography, the Kansas City metropolitan area straddles the dividing line between Kansas and Missouri. The outbreak "in Kansas" is associated with a significant outbreak in Missouri as well, but it's mostly within one place. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:59, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  On 3 January it was reported that,"after the CDC refuted that,[it was one of the largest ever] a state health official offered clarification, claiming this outbreak has seen the country’s highest case numbers over a one-year period"^[1]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:15, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:ASD#Requested move 30 January 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 19:55, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps someone from this WikiProject could take a look at File:227 over 93 hypertension.jpg just added to the infobox of Hypertensive crisis. It seems OK for a copyright standpoint and the uploader also seems to mean well. Is it, though, the best image for the infobox from an encyclopedic standpoint. That's an assessment that probably should be made by user more familiar with medical related articles and the standards associated with them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:15, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, apart from being slightly blurry, I think it is nearly ideal. It is a difficult to illustrate concept otherwise. CFCF (talk) 13:30, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello please see Talk:Fecal_incontinence#Kumar_2017_review to give opinion Moribundum (talk) 10:38, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For TLDR editors, my general feeling is that because research on anal sex and fecal incontinence remains limited, mention of this should be kept relatively brief on the article. In contrast, Moribundum has proposed a rather large body of text with detailed explanations of individual studies. I'm not opposed to including what they wrote, but I also think it verges into WP:TEXTBOOK. Other editor input on the discussion would be appreciated. Zenomonoz (talk) 11:16, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Users should be directed to the conversation immediately above the discussion provided by Moribundum: Talk:Fecal incontinence#Anal sex section Zenomonoz (talk) 11:18, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A request for comment is just supposed to be a link and a neutral statement. I was actually mainly wanting opinions regarding how the Kumar source should be used, but sure give opinion about the section as a whole if you want. I responded re length of section on that talk page in the interests of not splitting discussion. Moribundum (talk) 14:18, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you are interested in infographics about MEDRS or other sourcing requirements, you might be able to give useful advice at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:59, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you I have posted a draft alternative format for the diagram there. Daphne Morrow (talk) 07:11, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted a new draft of the diagram explaining MEDRS there; I would appreciate feedback if anyone's interested :) Daphne Morrow (talk) 13:10, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently an RFC on whether the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine is WP:FRINGE taking place at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:19, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:04, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, this project has about ~59 articles in need of some reference cleanup. Basically, some short references created via {{sfn}} and {{harvnb}} and similar templates have missing full citations or have some other problems. This is usually caused by templates misuse or by copy-pasting a short reference from another article without adding the full reference, or because a full reference is not making use of citation templates like {{cite book}} (see Help:CS1) or {{citation}} (see Help:CS2). To easily see which citation is in need of cleanup, you can check these instructions to enable error messages (Svick's script is the simplest to use, but Trappist the monk's script is a bit more refined if you're interested in doing deeper cleanup). See also how to resolve issues.

These could use some of your attention

If you could add the full references to those article/fix the problem references, that would be great. Again, the easiest way to deal with those is to install Svick's script per these instructions. If after installing the script, you do not see an error, that means it was either taken care of, or was a false positive, and you don't need to do anything else. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:41, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Around half way done. Velayinosu (talk) 03:57, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed another. I haven't installed the script; I just searched for {{harv and {{sfn in the wikitext. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Parkinson's disease is particularly problematic; I raised the issue at the (current) GA nomination. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:41, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Only 3 remain. The no-target error on "Mental health in Russia" is ref 56, which is to a Russia Today reference that was removed with this edit[1] because RT is deprecated. I skipped "Parkinson's disease" since it seems like others are working on that article. And the no-target error on "Thrombosis prevention" is ref 23 (Lilley), but I'm not sure what this reference is. The sfns were added in this edit[2] without a full reference. Velayinosu (talk) 05:15, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that is a prior version of this book. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:22, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More eyes needed at Parkinson's disease; it gets about 4,000 views a day and as one of WP:MED's most highly viewed pages, is worthy of attention. I only partially detailed the sourcing and citation problems at the GAN page, but have been unable to correct all the issues myself because of IRL time limitations. Maintenance tags removed; regardless of GA status, this article should be accurate, and readers should be informed there are sourcing issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:33, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from experienced WP:MEDRS-familiar editors are requested at Talk:Face_masks_during_the_COVID-19_pandemic#NIOSH's_1992_method_for_determining_the_effectiveness_of_resporators_as_a_"public_health_exposure_control_method", especially Talk:Face_masks_during_the_COVID-19_pandemic#Proposal_to_remove_article_tag. Additional background can be found at Talk:Face_masks_during_the_COVID-19_pandemic#Removal_Deemphasis_of_RCT_mask_studies_in_progress and Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_251#Face_masks_during_the_COVID-19_pandemic. Much appreciated as this has been a long-running dispute with a particular editor. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:04, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for posting--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:57, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NIH caps "indirect research costs" at 15%, potentially surrendering decades of US dominance in medical research. Doug Weller talk 13:10, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That headline sounds more like "the destruction of the Research university", as those "indirect costs" pay the university administration and overhead (e.g., cleaning the lab). If anyone wants to write about it, then a WPMED editor created Indirect costs many years ago. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:19, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some disturbing reading about the "destruction" of funding for US medical research (see Charles Piller, Cassava Sciences and Sylvain Lesné:

• https://www.economist.com/culture/2025/02/05/have-doctors-been-wrong-about-how-to-treat-alzheimers-disease
• https://www.thetransmitter.org/science-and-society/doctored-fraud-arrogance-and-tragedy-in-the-quest-to-cure-alzheimers-an-excerpt/
• https://retractionwatch.com/2025/02/04/undisclosed-conflicts-lightning-fast-peer-review-one-alzheimers-journals-role-in-a-failed-drug/
• https://www.sciencefriday.com/articles/doctored-book-excerpt/
• https://www.bookpage.com/reviews/doctored-charles-piller-book-review/

There's also a New York Times and Wall Street Journal entry, but paywalled. Piller makes a case that a lot of money has been wasted in Alzheimer's research, and implies that may be a reason solutions have lagged other diseases. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:34, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

its a bit of a nonsequitor to use criticism of amyloid hypothesis in a section about systematic destruction of biomedical research?

though amyloid hypothesis has seen some fraud over the years, its worth pointing out that there are very much real and important links between amyloid and Alzheimers disease that justifies much of the funding going to amyloid.

[3] User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 13:12, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that Science-Based Medicine is a MEDRS reliable source. Is that correct? Thanks! -- Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 12:23, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a case of "it depends". It's typically accepted as WP:PARITY for fringe theories, and as reliable for comments with WP:INTEXT attribution on a journal. But you shouldn't be using it to support basic medical content (e.g., what's a normal blood pressure?). See WP:SBM for a summary and (perhaps more importantly) for links to prior discussions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:53, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I am new to Wikipedia and have created an article titled Patient Safety in Nigeria - Wikipedia. Suggestion(s) on how to improve the article will be appreciated.

Thank you. Oye2633 (talk) 16:29, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Oye2633, some parts of this article appear to be Persuasive writing (certain "Efforts need to be" made, we have some "Recommended strategies"). An encyclopedia article should be plain description: This happened (or is happening). This resulted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:57, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Cytotron, a device made by a company Shreis Scalene Sciences has been in the news recently because of a fictionalised Netflix film, Lucca's World. Depending on who you listen to, the Cytotron, and its near-namesake the Neurocytotron from a Mexican company called Neurocytonix, both of which seem to be based on "Rotational Field Quantum Magnetic Resonance", are either a revolutionary new treatment for a variety of conditions including cancer, cerebral palsy and even autism... or just pseudoscience.[4]

Searching for "RFQMR" finds we already have a User:Cytotron, and a mention in List of megaprojects in India (which I will remove in a moment).

There is a whole lot about this from PR release republishers, but very little about any of this in WP:RS. This seems to me the sort of topic WP:MED should be taking a look at, one way or the other. — The Anome (talk) 01:04, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If not supported in reliable sources, then it doesn't sound like an encyclopedic topic. — soupvector (talk) 14:49, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More medical editors are likely needed at Autism. As seen in this talk page section, an editor is arguing that the article should be tagged "unbalanced" for giving too much weight to medical views based on, among other things, a survey they ran. There's also an ongoing Dispute Resolution Noticeboard discussion (linked therein). This same editor wrote a lengthy userpage essay, also published elsewhere, against Wikipedia's coverage of this topic, so there seems to be a concerted push to alter coverage in this area. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:09, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An RFC is already being planned.

My impression is that the existing article is outdated (e.g., it cites some sources from the previous century) and generally in poor shape. The suggested change is partly updates, partly the addition of viewpoints (e.g., autism as a personal identity and a source of positive experiences), and partly to use more positive-sounding language.[1]

I can image three basic categories of responses: The article is a mess now, and it should be updated and remain rooted in the biomedical model; the article is a mess now, and it should be converted primarily to a social model of disability and an identity orientation when it gets update; and it's such a mess now that any improvement would be welcome, regardless of POV.

If you are even slightly interested in this subject, please skim over the article and put the page on your watchlist so you can see when the RFC appears.

[1] Examples of wording options:

• Lots of people have both autism and generalized anxiety disorder; are these conditions "comorbid" or "co-occurring"?
• Does autism have medical-sounding "symptoms" or non-medical-sounding "characteristics" and "features"?
• Do autistic people have a "risk" of developing epilepsy, or do that have a higher "likelihood" of developing epilepsy?

WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:54, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you WhatamIdoing - what a nice summary! Balanced, succinct, informative, and as someone moderately involved in the DRN discussions, I find myself feeling more optimistic and motivated to stay involved. As we say in the South (U.S.), I appreciate you. (The proper Southern pronunciation of the verb is: ah-preee-shee-ate ;^) Cheers! -- Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 14:40, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Once a Featured article, with the entire suite of autism-related content cleaned up by User:Eubulides, those articles were taken over by advocacy editing over a decade ago and are unlikely to be salvageable. I long ago unwatched the lot; like some other areas of Wikipedia, the consensus model does not work in this suite of articles because the number of advocates editing in that area overruns the number of editors who strive for MEDRS compliance. Almost everything in that suite of articles should be tagged with more than unbalanced. If an RFC happens, please ping me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:40, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all for the responses. I'll keep an eye out for an RfC, at least. I wish I could think of some way to make it easier for a broader set of editors to work on these sorts of controversial topics, which would probably help alleviate the balance issues.

Something to watch out for is preventing the privileging of the experiences of those with milder symptoms, as though their experiences are representative of the entire condition, just because they are more likely to be heard from. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:54, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently an RfC at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#RfC about the pathologization of trans identities with the question Is the view that transgender identities are, in themselves, a mental illness or otherwise frequently caused by mental illness WP:FRINGE within the bounds of mainstream medicine and international human rights? Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 01:07, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment, since this would affect a significant portion of medical articles. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:44, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Streptococcal pharyngitis#Requested move 16 February 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Kolano • talk 21:39, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:08, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Attachment therapy#Requested move 19 February 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:07, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chronic inflammatory response syndrome (CIRS) was created as a redirect to Sick building syndrome by @Joel Amos, but is not currently mentioned in the article.

Annals of Medicine & Surgery describes it as a "multisymptom, multisystem illness acquired following respiratory exposure to water-damaged buildings."

• Dooley, Ming; Vukelic, April; Jim, Lysander (8 November 2024). "Chronic inflammatory response syndrome: a review of the evidence of clinical efficacy of treatment". Annals of Medicine & Surgery. 86 (12): 7248–7254. doi:10.1097/MS9.0000000000002718. ISSN 2049-0801.

Systemic inflammatory response syndrome is similarly named, but CIRS is not mentioned there either. Would anyone happen to know to which it should be redirected, or a new article be created altogether? 9³ (talk) 16:47, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not actually necessary for every redirect to be mentioned in an article; WP:RFD#DELETE only worries about them if they're "novel" or "very obscure" (i.e., nobody can figure out why they might be related).

The journal is middling (not bad).[5] The redirect to Sick building syndrome is not unreasonable. I suspect that this is another "chronic fatigue" problem: Do you have ME/CFS, or are you only tired all the time? This article appears to be about "the" chronic inflammatory response syndrome, and not just a syndrome that happens to be associated with a long-term inflammatory response. Overall, I'd suggest leaving it alone, but if you decide to mention it in the SBS article, I would carefully avoid any wording that implies that CIRS is a recognized or accepted thing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:24, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Wikipedia:NOLABLEAK has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 24 § Wikipedia:NOLABLEAK until a consensus is reached. TarnishedPath^talk 12:50, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion debate of a teenager who added vegetable dyes to sutures may be of interest to the community here, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dasia Taylor. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:23, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Manual_therapy&diff=1277591205&oldid=1277590732

I am editing an article on manual therapy, and believe that my source is reliable. Can someone please check my source?

Studenttourocmk (talk) 16:04, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The source is:

• Kerry, Roger; Young, Kenneth J.; Evans, David W.; Lee, Edward; Georgopoulos, Vasileios; Meakins, Adam; McCarthy, Chris; Cook, Chad; Ridehalgh, Colette; Vogel, Steven; Banton, Amanda; Bergström, Cecilia; Mazzieri, Anna Maria; Mourad, Firas; Hutting, Nathan (2024-05-21). "A modern way to teach and practice manual therapy". Chiropractic & Manual Therapies. 32 (1). doi:10.1186/s12998-024-00537-0. ISSN 2045-709X. PMC 11110311. PMID 38773515.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: PMC format (link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

Using Template:MEDRS evaluation as a framework, here's how I would evaluate it:

Evaluation of qualities in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine):

• Source: A modern way to teach and practice manual therapy PMID 38773515
• Date of publication: 2024-05-21, 9 months ago.
• Journal name: Chiropractic & Manual Therapies ISSN 2045-709X
• Publisher's name: Y Springer is one of the largest publishers of academic journals. The source may be available via Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library.
• Journal reputation: Top-rated chiropractic journal per https://www.scopus.com/sourceid/19700201301; above average ranking for physical therapy.
• Primary vs secondary: Y Secondary sources are best for many purposes.
• Evidence level (see PubMed's list of types): Y Review article
• Pre-clinical vs human: N/A
• Independence: N/A

User:Viewmont Viking, do you disagree with any of these points? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:55, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]