User talk:Adamscience

Your addition has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images&mdash;you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

May 2017
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Uric acid, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. ''Caution: You seem to be pushing saliva testing and building a case for synthesis of topics to justify its use. This is original research per WP:SYNTH.'' Zefr (talk) 19:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I am sorry for disturbing this page in such a way that may be inconsistent with best-practices, but I would like to improve to make relevant contributions to the community. Is it possible to get a little bit more feedback related to the below in order to not make any of the same mistakes again? Here is some background information to better explain my contribution;


 * On Reliable Content:
 * I am having a hard time piecing that together, being that I thought they were all published works, using the most recent methodologies or are of substantial age and have not been superseded by more recent research. No articles were dissertations, citations have been received, the citations were not isolated, and all articles are peer reviewed publications, from reputable journals (I believe). I also do not think that they are primary research articles that are not substantiated by additional publications, nor did I make conclusions not substantiated by the publication. I don’t understand how my citations are any different than the section on type 2 diabetes being that “one” study found high serum uric acid associated with higher risk of type 2 diabetes back in 2008….?


 * On synthesis:
 * It may seem like I am building a case for synthesis based on the topic of this methodology being saliva-based, but how would you introduce a subject or methodology without sounding focused on that topic? It would be equivocal of a page about automobiles and myself introducing sports coupes. It’s hard to not sound bias when you’re introducing a singular body style and presenting the relevance that body style has to the automotive world.


 * On pushing saliva testing for uric acid:
 * With Wikipedia being a resource for both historical, most up-to-date, and relevant information, I think it would be bias to not highlight a that uric acid can also be measured in saliva and specifically why that is both relevant and not relevant. I did not alter any of the blood-based citations, because I think they are historically relevant and still applicable, so I am not pushing one over the other. However, there is a considerable focus on measuring uric acid in saliva, due to its minimally invasive nature. If you read this article on uric acid, it is 90% blood-based research, and I do not caution that this article is pushing for blood testing, even though research using other methodologies is also prominent. This just happens to be the state of the industry and I understand that. However, it is clearly not equivocally balanced by current research and/or testing methods that are also of interest, including saliva and urine. I understand that more research needs to be done in order to determine biological relevance, but the same can be said for many of the serum-based conclusions in this article. Please can you suggest how to sound more neutral, so that I may introduce this concept a little bit better?


 * As well, I completely respect and encourage citations and content of opposing scientific opinions from the same caliber of literature. I was unable to find opposing research for this article, but I do not deny that it could be out there.


 * I have been doing a lot of research on saliva and have discovered a microcosm that not many people are aware of or understand and is not well-represented here. I believe there are benefits to saliva testing, but also limitations and I tried to propose no opinionated source material and I do not believe I am building a case for synthesis or contributing with bias that is not supported by the citations – unless a citation I proposed has not been reproducible or is indeed not reliable, then I understand that and would be happy to remove those citations and conclusions. I just need a little bit more help to better understand what went wrong. Adamscience (talk) 16:16, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * while I don't want to itemize comments for each source, the general impression leading to my edits is that there was a predominance of WP:PRIMARY sources and absence of WP:MEDRS sources, i.e., systematic reviews or meta-analyses summarizing the state of science and clinical application for saliva testing, that support encyclopedic content rather than evolving trends falling under WP:NOTNEWS. See especially WP:MEDSCI and WP:MEDASSESS for the source quality needed. I felt you were synthesizing individual disparate articles to reach a conclusion about saliva testing per WP:SYNTH. Having review sources rather than individual progress articles would take care of the neutrality expected to support covering all sides of the story, blood vs. saliva vs. urine. --Zefr (talk) 17:51, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply and guidance. This is helpful and now I understand. I will be more diligent about including higher-quality research, meta-analysis, and or RCTs. The only question I would have is if multiple, independent studies came to the same conclusion, would it be acceptable to cite those independent studies in place of a meta-analysis, maybe with a disclaimer? There are actually quite a few studies that found serum-saliva correlations, but they are spread across a number of different fields of research, so I expect a meta-analysis on this specific subject would be improbable due to the number of different fields and conditions uric acid may be associated with. I don’t know if that is helpful or not or would it still considered an evolving trend? Adamscience (talk) 20:48, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I would say that is dangerous territory where citing several preliminary studies leads to an editor's conclusion of growing or common practice. That is synthesis and original research. The purpose of a secondary review is that another author(s) has gone through the peer-review process to make a conclusion, a safer place. Wikipedia is not a textbook or journal report, but needs the best-established scientific position per WP:NOTJOURNAL, #6-7. --Zefr (talk) 20:58, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Perfect advice. Thank you for the clarification.Adamscience (talk) 21:26, 16 May 2017 (UTC)