161:
462:
121:
111:
190:, and was inspired by my own 9 years on Knowledge (XXG). We randomly selected a set of health-related articles (listed in the paper) and then invited recent editors of those articles to complete a questionnaire (32 respondents from 11 countries) and take part in interviews (16 respondents). We would like to again thank all our participants for their, often enthusiastic, cooperation!
37:
562:, where MEDRS is used to shoot down everything what is positive as being a health claim. In that example even sources provided by agricultural colleges/universities are shot down as not in accordance to MEDRS, making the articles more negative than available source should warrant. The discussions are already endless but the group supporting MEDRS is at least very loud.
131:
91:
1233:
141:
101:
708:
current physician. I do however hope, that in a near future
Knowledge (XXG) will allow scientific journals being used as reliable sources (at least if their GS is adequate), because writing a biography on a specific scientist without journals is quite difficult and academics don't appear in the news a whole lot from what I seen.--
1190:
feels that experts should lead in a crowdsourced encyclopaedia. I think experience on
Knowledge (XXG) has shown that experts will gravitate towards their areas of expertise and that much of the content on Knowledge (XXG) is written by experts, but that Knowledge (XXG) benefits by opening its doors to
1148:
Our survey was based on self-report, yes, so it is possible that participants were misleading with their responses. However, this seems unlikely. In some cases, the identities of our participants can be matched with external sources. While it is relatively easy to lie on an online questionnaire, most
902:
Well, my mom for example is not health care professional but she looks for her symptoms on WebMD. Most non-health professionals know at least about WebMD because its commercials are aired daily on any TV channel. People who watch their favorite ABC show will end up stumbling on WebMD adds at least in
244:
We would also like to see more people involved in editing. Various outreach projects, including WikiProject CRUK, are seeking to engage medics and health researchers. I also think
Knowledge (XXG)’s health content would benefit from more diverse voices in this area. What does it mean to have a patient
168:
Knowledge (XXG) is one of the most used sources of health information online, for healthcare professionals and students, as well as the general public. The value of that information to users, and the dangers from incorrect information, are greater than for many other topic areas and concerns over the
639:
MEDRS is not supposed to work that way, and is only supposed to cover health claims. For example, sociological issues related to diabetes are out of the scope of MEDRS, and organic farming practices are likewise out of scope. Discussions of purported health benefits of eating organic food are in the
193:
We found that around half of the editors (15/32) are qualified medics or other healthcare professionals, providing reassurance about the reliability of content. A smaller number of editors had specific health problems themselves that motivated their editing. Editors were predominantly men (31/32), a
1014:
I can only say that in talking about WikiProject
Medicine, no one had ever seen anything like this FDA proposal before, and the thought was that this was the first statement of its kind. For individual practitioners, some organizations make their own statements, typically in their own "social media
707:
which features either his research or his death. I do sometimes rely on scientific journals but the problem is is that
Knowledge (XXG) view some of it as OR. I don't like articles that carry OR but sometimes a specific research is listed only in scientific publication which in turn is authored by a
198:, who has also been doing research on Knowledge (XXG). In work presented at Wikimania 2014, he similarly found that about half of frequent editors of medical topics are healthcare professionals, but also that the core community only numbers about 300 individuals and seems to be shrinking over time.
1273:
An other interesting question: How many of the people asked to fill out the questionair actually did? If this was only 10%, then it's quite likely that the number of medical professionals among those asked was as low as 10%, and possibly even 5% - medical professionals were probably more likely to
1212:
No, I was talking about BLP's on physicians since in numerous of cases I get into contact with the subject while writing about him/her. As far as expertise go, maybe we didn't understood each other here. What I tried to say was that we don't have (or at least we trying to avoid) subjects that edit
1163:
Agreed. However, we should acknowledge one fact here: Knowledge (XXG) is not written by doctors or scientists, it is written by the common folk like me and probably you who have no Ph.D. in that knowledge. Just because a
Wikipedian likes a specific topic doesn't necessarily means that he/she is an
776:
As far as editing goes, I personally edit articles on physicians not because of my health (otherwise since I have
Cerebral Palsy I would have probably written an article on a foot doctor), but because the amount of articles on physicians (let alone academics in general) on Knowledge (XXG) is quite
698:
In my case, its tough to find a reliable source for any type of academic (that includes various physicians) I have written many articles on ophthalmologists and optometrists, bringing the amount of
American physicians in those fields to over a half of what it initially was. However, majority of my
1058:
did include the sentence " HCPs have a strong vested interest in supporting the updating and maintenance of medical information utilized by patients online, including
Knowledge (XXG)." Perhaps WikiProject Medicine could draft a suitable paragraph and submit to the regulators for consideration and
838:
For many years I have asked a question about registered health professionals (including doctors and nurses etc) viewing wikipedia's health related articles and never got a satisfactory answer. It they were to spot an error or omission in the article and do not correct or improve the article could
205:
Where next for the field? We know
Knowledge (XXG) health content is heavily accessed, but we know much less about who is using it for what purposes, what readers think of the material, and what impact it has on their decision-making. (Research on users is much harder to carry out than research on
201:
Individuals edited health-related content on Knowledge (XXG) because they wanted to improve content; they find editing Knowledge (XXG) is a good way to learn about topics themselves; they feel a sense of responsibility – often a professional responsibility – to provide good quality health
591:
is not fair because it excludes many papers but I hope that at least you feel that the policy is consistent and predictable. There is not consensus about what kinds of sources Knowledge (XXG) ought to accept, but I feel that there is usually consensus on whether a source meets MEDRS.
885:
I was thinking about information about conditions rather than biographies. I would suggest that many non health care professionals would not know what WebMD or PubMed are and would do a general Google search where wp articles are generally listed above peer reviewed papers.—
1087:
The FDA statement provides more clarity than I expected and I appreciate its boldness. I do not immediately imagine more that I would expect them or anyone else to say. In my view, their statement on what applies to organizations also applies to individuals, and I like the
1149:
participants also consented to interviews and it would have been harder to maintain a false identity through an interview. A handful of cases have emerged in Knowledge (XXG)'s history where editors have lied about their identity, but these are very much in a minority.
1071:
There was more discussion about this policy when the FDA solicited comment. As I remember, there was not sufficient interest in WikiProject Medicine in participating in the FDA's request for comment as a group, although some individuals may have commented.
160:
640:
scope of MEDRS. If someone tries to tell you about MEDRS and they are not talking about a human health issue, typically the sort of issue which a doctor might speak about with a patient regarding that person's health, then please go to
977:. More discussion is elsewhere - I cannot find it now. The FDA in the United States is the first instance of government regulation over this. They specifically talk about "online encyclopedias", and they must be aware that all other
781:
but I did wrote a hefty amount of articles on disabled athletes (at least 2 of them are also known for academic achievements). I'm also not a doctor of any kind, but I do like to write sometimes about them because I receive
30:
Who edits health-related content on Knowledge (XXG) and why?: We found that around half of the editors are qualified medics or other healthcare professionals, providing reassurance about the reliability of
506:
202:
information; they enjoy editing Knowledge (XXG); and they think highly of the value of Knowledge (XXG). However, some editors also reported being put off editing by hostility from others on the site.
496:
501:
245:
perspective when editing? In earlier work, I found only a few examples of patients editing material about their conditions in most articles from another random sample. However, three articles (
77:
238:
173:
have long recognised that even accurate online health information can be better or worse designed, reflect different possible perspectives, and still generate problems as well as solutions.
491:
618:
in in their remit so it should comply to their MEDRS-rules. The fact that organic food has more to do with agriculture is ignored with the claim to prevalence of MEDRS. Very frustrating.
532:
1055:
924:
That is a very US centric view. Here in the UK I've never seen an advert for WebMD & I've never seen ABC and never even heard of WCCO. The readership of wikipedia is worldwide.—
257:) showed a very different pattern with considerable editing by patients and others affected by those conditions. There are plenty of further research questions here to keep us busy.
1164:
expert in it. In majority of cases, editors who contributed to medicine field for example, are not necessarily doctors, otherwise they would have blocked for conflict of interest.--
275:
1128:
to be medical professionals. Without WMF verifying the credentials of Wikipedians, we may well have a collection of imaginative children and quack doctors writing these articles.
473:
56:
45:
871:
and therefore shouldn't be viewed as such. However, if I will want to learn about specific doctor that had a plethora of research papers, I will most definitely read it her!--
449:
1018:
Another related issue with individual practitioners is how they should respond to any consumer health information, including those provided by apps or collected through
1080:
1075:
974:
1191:
everyone. Ultimately, a policy based on content (content has to be verifiable against reliable sources) may work better that a policy based on privileging expertise.
1178:
I cannot see conflict of interest rules as being a reason to stop most doctors editing most health-related content most of the time. The fact is that Knowledge (XXG)
1368:
1054:
to the FDA guideline but could not find any of the regulatory bodies social media policies which specifically addressed my original question. One useful document
813:
21:
1221:, a professional in his field who's books are written in unconcise (in my opinion manner). Knowledge (XXG), on the other hand, is an encyclopedia based on
1343:
1338:
1333:
440:(2009), “Design rules and Web 2.0: mismatched models of how people use the Internet for healthcare”. Presentation at Third LifeGuide Workshop, London, UK
479:
1328:
868:
809:
169:
accuracy of Knowledge (XXG)’s health-related content remain (see for a recent study with a broadly positive conclusion). However, researchers in
1015:
policy". I know of no standardized social media policy, and even the Wikimedia Foundation as of a few years ago did not publish their own policy.
839:
they be sanctioned by their regulatory body? If a patient used the advice and was harmed as a result would the health professional be liable?—
1051:
699:
articles on them are stubs for one reason: The most reliable source that used for any academic is GS. Sure, sometimes I do find an article in
178:
777:
low. To be honest, English Knowledge (XXG) have the most academics period. Another thing to mention is that I never edited an article on
298:
1323:
978:
461:
50:
36:
17:
230:
1293:
from 220 accounts contacted, 32 answered (14.5%). Why would medical professionals be more likely to answer the questionnaire?
903:
my state of Minnesota. It might be different for other states though where people have ABC or WCCO as their cable channels.--
182:, on the motivations of contributors to health-related articles on Knowledge (XXG). The study was carried out by Nuša Farič,
1257:
My thanks to everybody for their comments on my Op-Ed and the original work. I'll try to reply to everyone in due course.
614:. But I have the feeling that it is misused against articles just slightly related to the medical world. They claim that
223:
805:
1002:
Thanks - that is really helpful re companies - do you know if there is similar guidance for individual practitioners?—
981:
are mostly defunct and were never viable. The policy is in my opinion a Knowledge (XXG)-specific government guideline.
170:
670:
It definitely does! Even the addition of a difference in chemical composition is shot down as being a health claim.
1349:
1136:
254:
234:
728:
1302:
1281:
1266:
1246:
1200:
1173:
1158:
1143:
1104:
1099:
1063:
1042:
1037:
1006:
994:
989:
965:
928:
912:
890:
880:
843:
831:
795:
765:
761:
751:
733:
717:
683:
665:
660:
631:
605:
600:
575:
1122:"...found that around half of the editors (15/32) are qualified medics or other healthcare professionals"
801:
1229:
books for example). Let me know if my comment still doesn't makes sense I will try to explain my best.
956:
USA. So, there is more US editors on English Knowledge (XXG) then there is Brits and Scots combined.--
250:
1298:
1278:
1262:
1196:
1154:
1091:
If you have something more to say, I could help you get comment on your view. What more do you want?
677:
625:
569:
1130:
215:
724:
318:
207:
1029:
has, but even that organization, its publications, and its community are difficult to describe.
649:
588:
555:
384:"Motivations for Contributing to Health-Related Articles on Knowledge (XXG): An Interview Study"
194:
familiar finding, and ranged in age from 12 to 59. One of our interviewees is Dr James Heilman,
863:
if they want to learn about specific ailment. Knowledge (XXG) is just an encyclopedia based on
239:
Knowledge (XXG) talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#A change to some of our headings
94:
1092:
1047:
1030:
1019:
999:
982:
757:
653:
611:
593:
528:
421:
405:
365:
358:
164:
Knowledge (XXG) is one of the first resources for individuals looking for medical information.
124:
855:
Not necessarily. Majority of people who look for a specific health related information chose
817:
756:
Google scholar is not actually a reliable search engine, it includes many unreliable sources.
1242:
1169:
961:
908:
876:
860:
791:
747:
713:
412:
395:
348:
310:
641:
104:
1294:
1275:
1258:
1222:
1218:
1207:
1192:
1150:
864:
672:
636:
620:
584:
564:
187:
183:
154:
645:
134:
1025:
I have seen no organization jump into the online collaborative space to the extent that
1226:
416:
383:
219:
195:
1362:
827:
321:
1187:
615:
559:
266:
are those of the author only; responses and critical commentary are invited in the
241:
as an example. Although getting all articles to match MEDMOS is another challenge!
211:
114:
652:
is confined only to human health issues and completely separate from agriculture.
229:
Answers will help us find the right style for Knowledge (XXG) articles on health.
144:
1288:
1238:
1165:
957:
919:
904:
872:
787:
743:
709:
299:"How Accurate Are Knowledge (XXG) Articles in Health, Nutrition, and Medicine?"
408:
361:
1068:
1060:
1026:
1011:
1003:
970:
947:
925:
897:
887:
850:
840:
558:
is used/misused at the borders of medicine and agriculture. For example at
424:
368:
314:
822:
353:
953:
869:
Knowledge (XXG) is not a collection of various bios on various doctors
812:, has 2030 members, of whom only 77 have articles on WP, according to
644:
and ask for help. In organic food there are other controversies about
400:
210:
have recently employed a Wikipedian-in-residence, John Byrne. John is
246:
233:
have already been evolving the manual of style for medical articles (
437:
176:
This led to a new research study, published 3 December 2014 in the
973:
There was no answer to this question until earlier this year. See
856:
610:
I have no doubt that MEDRS is fair for 100% medical articles like
263:
159:
336:
55:
337:"Survey of Doctors' Experience of Patients Using the Internet"
1213:
about themselves. Another thing to add here is that the word
460:
72:
Who edits health-related content on Knowledge (XXG) and why?
35:
952:
Yes, but keep in mind that Knowledge (XXG) was founded in
226:
for more. We’re helping John to research these questions.
1124:
How do you know this? I think you meant to say that half
544:
537:
517:
673:
621:
565:
1056:
IMS Institute Engaging patients through social media
542:If your comment has not appeared here, you can try
303:
Canadian Journal of Information and Library Science
1022:. There is no policy anywhere on these things.
820:, any member of this organization is notable.
814:Category:Members of the Institute of Medicine
8:
237:) to make the language more accessible: see
1059:inclusion in their social media policies?—
975:the mention of this in WikiProject Medicine
218:for this project, which was funded by the
1369:Knowledge (XXG) Signpost archives 2014-12
415:
399:
352:
335:Potts, Henry; Jeremy Wyatt (2002-03-31).
297:Temple, Norman; Joy Fraser (March 2014).
1182:written by many doctors and scientists,
648:, but I hope that the controversy about
18:Knowledge (XXG):Knowledge (XXG) Signpost
1050:Your answer sent me searching. I found
810:National Academies of the United States
545:
521:
382:Farič, Nuša; Henry Potts (2014-12-03).
289:
71:
1121:
274:welcomes proposals for op-eds at our
29:
7:
1230:
388:Journal of Medical Internet Research
341:Journal of Medical Internet Research
179:Journal of Medical Internet Research
722:What does "GS" mean here? Thanks,
57:
28:
979:online medical wiki encyclopedias
784:Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery
527:These comments are automatically
1231:
224:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject CRUK
139:
129:
119:
109:
99:
89:
1318:: doing it for free since 2005.
1274:answer this than other people.
538:add the page to your watchlist
1:
1303:15:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
766:00:11, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
684:21:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
666:17:45, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
267:
1282:16:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
1267:17:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
1247:20:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
1201:17:14, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
1174:19:32, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
1159:17:14, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
1144:17:49, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
1105:17:42, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
1064:17:18, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
1043:16:37, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
1007:16:31, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
995:16:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
966:16:13, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
929:07:54, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
913:23:26, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
891:19:55, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
881:19:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
844:09:56, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
832:04:32, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
806:National Academy of Sciences
796:00:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
752:02:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
734:00:31, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
718:00:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
632:20:58, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
606:16:25, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
576:21:53, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
262:The views expressed in this
171:consumer health informatics
1385:
1217:to me means someone like
1076:discussion in archive 56
804:, the equivalent of the
255:chronic fatigue syndrome
206:content or on editors!)
535:. To follow comments,
465:
165:
40:
802:Institute of Medicine
587:Many people say that
554:It is sad to see how
464:
315:10.1353/ils.2014.0000
163:
155:Dr. Henry W. W. Potts
39:
642:WikiProject Medicine
531:from this article's
231:WikiProject Medicine
354:10.2196/jmir.4.1.e5
251:Asperger's syndrome
216:User:Wiki CRUK John
1186:by "common folk".
867:. In other words,
808:, and part of the
705:The New York Times
522:Discuss this story
507:WikiProject report
466:
208:Cancer Research UK
166:
46:← Back to Contents
41:
1020:activity trackers
612:diabetes mellitus
546:purging the cache
401:10.2196/jmir.3569
214:, but working as
51:View Latest Issue
1376:
1352:
1292:
1236:
1235:
1234:
1211:
1142:
1139:
1133:
1102:
1097:
1040:
1035:
992:
987:
951:
923:
901:
854:
732:
731:
682:
675:
663:
658:
630:
623:
603:
598:
574:
567:
549:
547:
541:
520:
497:Featured content
484:
476:
469:
452:
441:
435:
429:
428:
419:
403:
379:
373:
372:
356:
332:
326:
325:
294:
268:comments section
157:
143:
142:
133:
132:
123:
122:
113:
112:
103:
102:
93:
92:
63:
61:
59:
1384:
1383:
1379:
1378:
1377:
1375:
1374:
1373:
1359:
1358:
1357:
1356:
1355:
1354:
1353:
1348:
1346:
1341:
1336:
1331:
1326:
1319:
1311:
1310:
1286:
1232:
1223:popular science
1219:Stephen Hawking
1205:
1137:
1131:
1129:
1100:
1093:
1038:
1031:
990:
983:
945:
917:
895:
865:popular science
848:
727:
723:
701:Chicago Tribune
671:
661:
654:
619:
601:
594:
563:
551:
543:
536:
525:
524:
518:+ Add a comment
516:
512:
511:
510:
477:
474:3 December 2014
472:
470:
467:
456:
455:
450:
445:
444:
436:
432:
381:
380:
376:
334:
333:
329:
296:
295:
291:
286:
188:User:Bondegezou
184:User:Hydra Rain
158:
152:
151:
150:
149:
140:
130:
120:
110:
100:
90:
84:
81:
70:
66:
64:
58:3 December 2014
54:
53:
48:
42:
32:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
1382:
1380:
1372:
1371:
1361:
1360:
1347:
1342:
1337:
1332:
1327:
1322:
1321:
1320:
1313:
1312:
1309:
1308:
1307:
1306:
1305:
1270:
1269:
1255:
1254:
1253:
1252:
1251:
1250:
1249:
1227:Gerald Durrell
1161:
1132:Chris Troutman
1118:
1117:
1116:
1115:
1114:
1113:
1112:
1111:
1110:
1109:
1108:
1107:
1095:Blue Rasberry
1089:
1085:
1084:
1083:
1078:
1033:Blue Rasberry
1023:
1016:
985:Blue Rasberry
968:
940:
939:
938:
937:
936:
935:
934:
933:
932:
931:
836:
835:
834:
774:
773:
772:
771:
770:
769:
768:
740:Google Scholar
695:
694:
693:
692:
691:
690:
689:
688:
687:
686:
656:Blue Rasberry
596:Blue Rasberry
579:
578:
526:
523:
515:
514:
513:
509:
504:
502:Traffic report
499:
494:
489:
483:
471:
459:
458:
457:
448:
447:
446:
443:
442:
430:
374:
327:
288:
287:
285:
282:
281:
280:
220:Wellcome Trust
196:User:Doc James
186:, and myself,
148:
147:
137:
127:
117:
107:
97:
86:
85:
82:
76:
75:
74:
73:
68:
67:
65:
62:
49:
44:
43:
34:
33:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1381:
1370:
1367:
1366:
1364:
1351:
1345:
1340:
1335:
1330:
1325:
1317:
1304:
1300:
1296:
1290:
1285:
1284:
1283:
1280:
1277:
1272:
1271:
1268:
1264:
1260:
1256:
1248:
1244:
1240:
1228:
1224:
1220:
1216:
1209:
1204:
1203:
1202:
1198:
1194:
1189:
1185:
1181:
1177:
1176:
1175:
1171:
1167:
1162:
1160:
1156:
1152:
1147:
1146:
1145:
1140:
1134:
1127:
1123:
1120:
1119:
1106:
1103:
1098:
1096:
1090:
1086:
1082:
1079:
1077:
1074:
1073:
1070:
1067:
1066:
1065:
1062:
1057:
1053:
1052:this response
1049:
1046:
1045:
1044:
1041:
1036:
1034:
1028:
1024:
1021:
1017:
1013:
1010:
1009:
1008:
1005:
1001:
998:
997:
996:
993:
988:
986:
980:
976:
972:
969:
967:
963:
959:
955:
949:
944:
943:
942:
941:
930:
927:
921:
916:
915:
914:
910:
906:
899:
894:
893:
892:
889:
884:
883:
882:
878:
874:
870:
866:
862:
858:
852:
847:
846:
845:
842:
837:
833:
829:
825:
824:
819:
815:
811:
807:
803:
799:
798:
797:
793:
789:
785:
780:
775:
767:
763:
759:
755:
754:
753:
749:
745:
741:
737:
736:
735:
730:
726:
725:SchreiberBike
721:
720:
719:
715:
711:
706:
702:
697:
696:
685:
681:
680:
676:
669:
668:
667:
664:
659:
657:
651:
647:
643:
638:
635:
634:
633:
629:
628:
624:
617:
613:
609:
608:
607:
604:
599:
597:
590:
586:
583:
582:
581:
580:
577:
573:
572:
568:
561:
557:
553:
552:
548:
539:
534:
530:
519:
508:
505:
503:
500:
498:
495:
493:
490:
488:
485:
481:
475:
468:In this issue
463:
454:
439:
434:
431:
426:
423:
418:
414:
410:
407:
402:
397:
393:
389:
385:
378:
375:
370:
367:
363:
360:
355:
350:
346:
342:
338:
331:
328:
323:
320:
316:
312:
308:
304:
300:
293:
290:
283:
279:
277:
271:
269:
265:
260:
259:
258:
256:
252:
248:
242:
240:
236:
232:
227:
225:
221:
217:
213:
209:
203:
199:
197:
191:
189:
185:
181:
180:
174:
172:
162:
156:
146:
138:
136:
128:
126:
118:
116:
108:
106:
98:
96:
88:
87:
79:
60:
52:
47:
38:
23:
19:
1315:
1214:
1188:Larry Sanger
1183:
1179:
1125:
1094:
1048:Bluerasberry
1032:
1000:Bluerasberry
984:
821:
783:
778:
758:AioftheStorm
739:
704:
700:
678:
655:
626:
616:Organic food
595:
570:
560:Organic food
492:In the media
486:
480:all comments
433:
394:(12): e260.
391:
387:
377:
344:
340:
330:
309:(1): 37–52.
306:
302:
292:
276:opinion desk
273:
261:
243:
228:
212:User:Johnbod
204:
200:
192:
177:
175:
167:
1350:Suggestions
529:transcluded
1295:Hydra Rain
1279:Od Mishehu
1259:Bondegezou
1225:(think of
1208:Bondegezou
1193:Bondegezou
1151:Bondegezou
1088:statement.
1081:Archive 50
674:The Banner
637:The Banner
622:The Banner
585:The Banner
566:The Banner
83:Share this
78:Contribute
22:2014-12-03
1344:Subscribe
1276:עוד מישהו
1027:HealthTap
738:It means
533:talk page
453:"Op-ed" →
409:1438-8871
362:1438-8871
347:(1): e5.
235:WT:MEDMOS
1363:Category
1339:Newsroom
1334:Archives
1316:Signpost
1184:and also
650:WP:MEDRS
589:WP:MEDRS
556:WP:MEDRS
425:25498308
369:11956037
322:60695239
272:Signpost
125:LinkedIn
105:Facebook
31:content.
20: |
954:Florida
818:WP:PROF
438:Potts H
417:4275502
115:Twitter
1289:Mishae
1239:Mishae
1215:expert
1166:Mishae
1101:(talk)
1039:(talk)
991:(talk)
958:Mishae
920:Mishae
905:Mishae
873:Mishae
861:PudMed
788:Mishae
779:autism
744:Mishae
710:Mishae
662:(talk)
602:(talk)
270:. The
247:autism
222:; see
135:Reddit
95:E-mail
1329:About
1126:claim
857:WebMD
816:. By
646:WP:RS
487:Op-ed
319:S2CID
284:Notes
264:op-ed
69:Op-ed
16:<
1324:Home
1314:The
1299:talk
1263:talk
1243:talk
1197:talk
1170:talk
1155:talk
1138:talk
1069:Rodw
1012:Rodw
971:Rodw
962:talk
948:Rodw
909:talk
898:Rodw
877:talk
851:Rodw
828:talk
800:The
792:talk
762:talk
748:talk
729:talk
714:talk
679:talk
627:talk
571:talk
451:Next
422:PMID
406:ISSN
366:PMID
359:ISSN
145:Digg
1061:Rod
1004:Rod
926:Rod
888:Rod
859:or
841:Rod
823:DGG
786:.--
742:.--
703:or
413:PMC
396:doi
349:doi
311:doi
153:By
80:—
1365::
1301:)
1265:)
1245:)
1237:--
1199:)
1180:is
1172:)
1157:)
964:)
911:)
879:)
830:)
794:)
764:)
750:)
716:)
420:.
411:.
404:.
392:16
390:.
386:.
364:.
357:.
343:.
339:.
317:.
307:38
305:.
301:.
253:,
249:,
1297:(
1291::
1287:@
1261:(
1241:(
1210::
1206:@
1195:(
1168:(
1153:(
1141:)
1135:(
960:(
950::
946:@
922::
918:@
907:(
900::
896:@
875:(
853::
849:@
826:(
790:(
760:(
746:(
712:(
550:.
540:.
482:)
478:(
427:.
398::
371:.
351::
345:4
324:.
313::
278:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
