Evidence based

Checkable evidence to support whatever it is that is claimed.

I'm afraid you're losing me here.

Obviously anyone can quote anyone -real or imaginary- as their 'source'. The writers of the articles in question - including the original - would also have to have some proven academic standing/credibility in the first place, too.

So?


Evidence works both ways.



Juries can disagree, too. We believe what we choose to believe.

The key is reproducing the study. In science, it's not just about doing a double-blind study or firing off some positrons into a target. It's being able to reproduce the experiment, and even more it's about others doing it. Most things now loosely considered "facts" are that way because other groups replicated the experiment and got the same results.

So when one group says something is "evidence based", it just means that they have evidence that convinces them. The 911-as-conspiracy people have evidence; the fake-moon-landing people have evidence; and so on.

Sadly, this means that in many cases you have to take a sit-back-and-wait attitude. One article on cold fusion is mildly interesting. Confirming evidence from another university is dramatically interesting.

So look for the same results coming out of multiple sources -- and known, reputable sources. Then start getting excited.

Titles are titles.

Surely the credibility of any content depends upon the reader's assessment of the correlation between the academic title/qualifications/standing/reputation/ previous articles... and the content of the article concerned.

boron said:

So, here is an

Evidence-based article about calcium (as a nutrient)

My question:

Before checking the article, what exactly would an article need to offer that you were about to agree it is "evidence based?"

Click to expand...

Based on scientifically sound peer-reviewed studies, properly cited.

Simply refer to a cited Article in which so-and-so claims such and such.

Presumably you are putting the information forward or referring to the Article without claiming to support it or the evidence.

Is it you who is using the word 'evidence- based' - not the writer of the Article concerned? I haven't read it.

Glad you've made an example. I think my question is, which more appropriate term I can use instead of evidence, if evidence is perceived as a so relative term.

Click to expand...

So the Article in question is yours?

I thought it was someone else's Article (entitled as quoted) to which you were referring and you were trying to gauge how to refer to it without supporting .,..Oh, I give up, but I'm glad you've found a way around the issue that concerned you.

Good luck.

boron said:

I can write an article and within the article I can say, this is is an evidence based article, which is a quite hard claim. I was thinking to use some lighter term, maybe I'll stick with "literature review."

Click to expand...

Is the calcium article supposed to be a systematic review? Because it just reads like a collection of calcium facts from various sources. It doesn't concern a research question, there's no statistical analysis, no quality assessment, no methodology, no description of the selection process...

boron said:

If I say I've made an "evidence based" article, it's often too much, because, especially in nutrition, many things are not 100% proven at the time.

Click to expand...

There is no such thing as 100% proof in science. Scientific knowledge is never final. Evidence is something that provides support for a hypothesis being true, but no matter how much evidence you have, no theory will ever be proven true.

Sorry, this isn't even a literature review. You need to be much more up front about how you found and evaluated the literature, databases used, inclusion criteria etc. A literature review should posit a theory and attempt to prove or disprove it.

What you have is an article about calcium. It links to resources to show where the information comes from, but unless you make any attempt to critique those resources, show that the same results come from multiple sources, demonstrate best evidence, etc, this has no academic value.

I used to do this for a living.

ETA: Try checking the Cochrane Collaboration for information about what makes evidence-based healthcare. They are one of the very best resources available for exactly this.

boron said:

I can write an article and within the article I can say, this is is an evidence based article, which is a quite hard claim. I was thinking to use some lighter term, maybe I'll stick with "literature review."

Click to expand...

That's not a literature review.

boron said:

No, it is only a "review of literature," which is, as you probably know, another type of research article on a lower level than "systematic review."

But then...I've researched and mentioned many systematic reviews in my...review.

Click to expand...

I know what those are, yes; I'm a biologist.

Mentioning something isn't reviewing it.

Your sources aren't well referenced either.

e.g.

4. Mineral waters calcium and magnesium content PubMed Central

Links to PubMed - a medical research database of articles. The information used is actually from:

Morr, Simon, et al. "How Much Calcium Is in Your Drinking Water? A Survey of Calcium Concentrations in Bottled and Tap Water and Their Significance for Medical Treatment and Drug Administration" HSS J. Sep 2006; 2(2): 130–135. PubMed. Web. 29 March 2006.

This suggests you haven't actually read the whole journal article or reviewed it's relevance to your article.

You don't actually tell us that the articles you've reviewed are systematic reviews, peer reviewed, or anything else that denotes quality healthcare information.

This matters a great deal when you're providing information people may use to benefit their health. Take the time to get it right.

Whether an article remains online or not is not an indicator of quality. Quality of the study trumps all when it comes to healthcare information. You're asking people to believe what you're writing. Give us an indication that you know what you're doing, otherwise we won't.

This matters. How do you know you're not harming someone by using only what is available and not what is relevant?