Talk:Benzodiazepine/Sources

Untitled
Here is a catalog of all the sources cited in the current version of the Benzodiazepine article, along with some brief comments about each category of sources. Categories are listed (very roughly) most-reliable first. Within a category, sources are listed in time order, newest first; I listed them this way because more up-to-date sources are typically preferred.

Most of the sources are quite good, but there are some problems. Here's a brief summary of the possibly problematic areas in sources, pointed out in Colin's remarks:


 * Many of the cited reviews are pretty old. However, this has been improved lately, and many aspects of benzos are no longer actively researched, so perhaps this is OK.
 * 1 primary study is cited, Loxley 2007. However, it's fairly new and in a lightly-reviewed area (criminal behavior), and is briefly and carefully summarized, so this looks OK.

Eubulides (talk) last updated 07:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Catalog

 * Consensus recommendations and guidelines. These are high-quality consensus documents put out by respectable organizations.
 * ACOG 2008
 * Lal et al. 2007
 * NICE 2004
 * Stokes et al. 2004
 * Stokes et al. 2004 (Appendix B)
 * Allgulander et al. 2003
 * Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network 2003
 * AAP Committee on Drugs 1998
 * Fruchtengarten 1998
 * Moss 1998
 * Committee on Safety of Medicines 1988


 * Systematic reviews. These high-quality sources attempt to cover a topic by systematic discovery and summarization of sources. The 1980 review is pretty old, though.
 * Orriols et al. 2009
 * Gillies et al. 2005
 * Committee on the Review of Medicines 1980


 * Meta-analyses. These attempt to answer specific questions by combining results from several reliable sources.
 * Rapoport et al. 2009
 * Barker et al. 2004
 * Curtin & Schulz 2004
 * Dolovich et al. 1998


 * Narrative reviews in biomedical or psychiatric journals. These are summaries of a topic by experts in the field, using the best available sources at the time. Older reviews may be somewhat dated. 20 of these reviews are more than a decade old; can some of these be trimmed?
 * Charlson et al. 2009
 * Cloos & Ferreira 2009
 * Lader et al. 2009
 * Bogan 2008
 * Lader 2008
 * Olkkola & Ahonen 2008
 * Saïas & Gallarda 2008
 * Tariq & Pulisetty 2008
 * Zimbroff 2008
 * ElDesoky 2007
 * Kintz 2007
 * Lemmer 2007
 * Perugi et al. 2007
 * Bain 2006
 * Ebell 2006
 * Nardi & Perna 2006
 * Narimatsu et al. 2006 [in Japanese]
 * Rudolph & Möhler 2006
 * Wang et al. 2006
 * Allain et al. 2005
 * Ashton 2005
 * Hulse et al. 2005
 * Otto et al. 2005
 * Stevens & Pollack 2005
 * Stewart 2005
 * Verdoux et al. 2005
 * Ashton 2004
 * Bogunovic & Greenfield 2004
 * Chouinard 2004
 * Doyle & Pollack 2004
 * DTB 2004
 * Faught 2004
 * Seger 2004
 * Wafford et al. 2004
 * Snowden et al. 2003
 * Arvat et al. 2002
 * Iqbal et al. 2002
 * Paton 2002
 * Longo & Johnson 2000
 * Lader 1999
 * Kraemer et al. 1999
 * Mañon-Espaillat & Mandel 1999
 * Noble et al. 1999
 * Prater et al. 1999
 * White & Irvine 1999
 * Bond 1998
 * Fraser 1998
 * Hevers & Lüddens 1998
 * Ashworth & Gerada 1997
 * Gerada & Ashworth 1997
 * Norman et al. 1997
 * Zavala 1997
 * Zisterer & Williams 1997
 * Johnston 1996
 * Peppers 1996
 * Podell 1996
 * Pétursson 1994
 * King 1992
 * Spivey 1992
 * Ashton 1991
 * Gaudreault et al. 1991
 * Klein-Schwartz & Oderda 1991
 * Miller & Gold 1990
 * Tesar 1990
 * Frey 1989


 * Narrative reviews published in other journals. This looks reliable.
 * Drummer 2002


 * Biomedical textbooks. All quite-good sources, though reviews might be a bit better if a more-recent one is on the same point. Some of them (marked below) are older editions of books where newer editions have been published; these newer editions should be consulted if possible.
 * BNF 2009 (ISBN 978-0853698456)
 * Dikeos et al. 2008 (ISBN 0-415-43818-7)
 * Ayers et al. 2007 (ISBN 978-0521879972)
 * Harrison et al. 2006 (ISBN 0-19-856667-0)
 * Lieberman & Tasman 2006 (ISBN 0-470-02821-1)
 * Meyler & Aronson JK (eds.) 2006 (ISBN 0-444-50998-4)
 * Olsen & Betz 2006 (ISBN 0-12-088397-X)
 * Roach & Ford 2006 (ISBN 978-0-7817-7595-3)
 * McIntosh et al. 2005 (ISBN 0-19-852783-7) (a newer edition is available, and should be used if possible)
 * Merck Vet Manual 2005
 * Shorter 2005 (ISBN 0-19-517668-5)
 * Wyatt et al. 2005 (ISBN 978-0198526230)
 * Haddad et al. 2004 (ISBN 978-0198527480)
 * Mozayani & Raymon 2004 (ISBN 1-58829-211-8)
 * Ramrakha & Moore 2004 (ISBN 0198520727) (a newer edition is available, and should be used if possible)
 * Longmore et al. 2003 (ISBN 0-19-852518-4) (a newer edition is available, and should be used if possible)
 * Ashton 2002 and Ashton 2007
 * Goldfrank 2002 (ISBN 0-07-136001-8)
 * Page et al. 2002 (ISBN 978-0723432210)
 * Gross 2001 (ISBN 0-8138-1743-9)
 * Kaplan & Sadock 2000 (ISBN 0-683-30128-4)
 * Palmer et al. 1996 (ISBN 978-0803974777)


 * Biomedical websites. Looks OK.
 * Green et al. 2008
 * Tidy 2007
 * Benzodiazepines – oral 2005


 * Government-maintained websites. The first is authoritative for its point. Barbui & Cipriani 2009 is a bit iffy, as it's just a proposal. Can we find a better source for that claim?
 * List of Drugs Currently Controlled Under The Misuse of Drugs Legislation 2009-01-28
 * Barbui & Cipriani 2009


 * History articles. These look good.
 * Shorvon 2009
 * Sternbach 1979


 * Summary websites. These look fine too.
 * The complete story of the benzodiazepines 2005
 * Benzodiazepines advanced consumer information 2005-02-24


 * Primary studies. Primary studies are problematic, as per WP:MEDRS. Any primary study older than about five years old is particularly dubious: if it's that old, and its point can't be supported by a reliable review instead, then something is amiss. However, this study is newer, and in a lightly reviewed area, and is carefully summarized.
 * Loxley 2007


 * Testimony. This one is fine, for the legal point it supports.
 * Peart 1999-06-01

Eubulides (talk) last updated 07:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)