Wikipedia:Training/For students/Medical topics 2

What makes a good, reliable source for a medical article? For medicine, a single research study -- no matter how popular it may be in newspapers or blog posts -- is not relevant for Wikipedia until a medical consensus has emerged. This can be difficult to track on your own, which is why the medical community on Wikipedia strongly discourages the use of primary sources.

Good sources...
 * summarize secondary sources or many primary sources.
 * provide an overview of the current understanding of the topic.
 * combine the results of several studies.

Good resources:
 * literature reviews or systematic reviews found in reputable medical journals
 * academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant field, from a respected publisher
 * medical guidelines or position statements from nationally or internationally recognized expert bodies
 * are independent and up-to-date, and typically not older than 5 years

Bad resources: Primary sources, where the author directly participated in the research, or documented their personal experiences (examining patients, for example), are not ready for Wikipedia. Avoid primary sources, including:


 * Nearly all papers published in medical journals
 * Popular press articles
 * Blogs

You should read the full guideline on identifying reliable medical sources.