Template:MEDRS evaluation/doc

How to use

 {{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, 6 years ago.   Consider whether a newer source would be better.
• Journal name: New England Journal of Medicine
• Publisher's name: Y 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: Y Secondary sources are best for many purposes.
• Evidence level (see PubMed's list of types): Y Review article
• Pre-clinical vs human: N Research only in animals or tissues is not usually appropriate.
• Independence: Y 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

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

Use this template to organize facts and editors' assessments in discussions about medicine-related sources.

Template parameters

This template prefers block formatting of parameters.

Parameter		Description	Type	Status
Title of source	source	Add the name of the source. Supports URLs and templates such as {{PMID}} and {{DOI}}. Example "Denpasar Declaration on Population and Development" {{PMID|1234567}}	Unknown	suggested
Date	date	Date of publication. Supports most date formats. Example 2018	Date	suggested
Journal	journal	Name of the journal, if relevant Example New England Journal of Medicine	Page name	suggested
Publisher	publisher	Name of publisher Example Wiley (publisher)	Page name	suggested
Journal or publisher reputation	reputation	Add your description. Include links to sources. Read [[Wikipedia:Impact factor]] Example Highly ranked journal per https://www.scopus.com/sourceid/16590	Unknown	suggested
Source classification	type	Primary, secondary, or tertiary? Suggested values primary secondary tertiary uncertain Example secondary	Content	suggested
Is it a review?	evidence	Level of evidence by source type. Type can usually be found in [[PubMed]]. Suggested values review systematic narrative literature meta-analysis guideline practice guideline textbook reference case study clinical trial conference commentary editorial interview letter news oped patent popular press preprint press release randomized controlled trial retracted self-published social media Example review	Unknown	suggested
Study subjects	human	Was this research done on humans? Example yes	Boolean	optional
Independence	independence	Is this an independent source, without significant conflicts of interest? Example yes	Boolean	optional