MEpedia:Science guidelines

Thank you so much for deciding to contribute to MEpedia, and for rolling up your sleeves to work on the science! Let's dive right in.

Goals
The basic goals of an MEpedia science article are to:


 * Inform the reader of the basics
 * Provide resources via links and citations so the reader can learn more

Start with a one-paragraph summary
At the start of every article on MEpedia, there should be a plain-language summary of the content below. Sometimes, it is easier to write the summary last; you will have a much clearer conception of the main idea once the rest of your writing is done. The summary should appear above any sections you create, making it show up above the table of contents.

Outlines
You can find MEpedia article outlines for potential treatments, medical hypotheses, and body systems, e.g.. Just copy the outline (Ctrl-C) and paste it (Ctrl-V) into the article to have a template you can use.

A note on ME v. CFS
We have separate pages for Myalgic Encephalomyelitis, ME/CFS and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome as well as SEID. The convention is that the terminology used in an ME-pedia article should match the terminology used in the underlying source. Where there is a tension between the term used in the source and the definition (e.g., ME defined by the Oxford criteria or CFS defined by the Canadian Consensus Criteria), it may be useful for clarity to mention the definition used.

Just the facts
Science writing should be about what we know to be true, so far as our current understanding of science can tell us.

It's important to omit descriptive words that encourage the reader to think in a certain way, such as adjectives and adverbs. For example, "intriguingly", "disastrously", and other adverbs inform the reader what they ought to think about the next piece of information. The facts must speak for themselves.

Aim as close to the objective truth as possible.

Avoid the omission of credible sources with which you may disagree.

Less is more
The goal of an MEpedia page is to inform the reader of the basics and link out to resources that will provide a more thorough grounding in the topic. To best serve our community in the long run, that may mean reading a long article and typing one sentence (or even one phrase!) into MEpedia.

If you aren't certain how to interpret a study or summarize it, you may be able to find more information if you look on Phoenix Rising or Science for ME and search for the study's title in quotes. Often there will be a thread with detailed discussions of the study's implications. You may also check out the MEpedia Project Facebook group and chat about the study there.

Do your best to avoid cutting and pasting, or paraphrasing blocks of information. Find the simplest way to convey the information so that brain-fogged readers can understand.

No advice
Do not give advice or offer recommendations. If a particular professional or patient group gives advice, for example in dose of a potential treatment, make it clear who is advising this.

Use equivocal language
Recognize that scientific fact changes by using equivocal language: "it may be that..." "it is possible that..." are good examples. Avoid language like "it has been proved" or "we now know".

Citation
Even if you are certain it is true, if you can't cite it, you can't say it. And unless it's common knowledge, be sure to cite everything you say, whether you're quoting the source or paraphrasing information from it.

Suggested Sources
See  What counts as an academic source  (Monash University)

General topics (tertiary sources)
 * MSD Manuals - Consumer (basic topics) or Professional editions
 * Medical dictionary citations shown for each term
 * Merckx Manuals
 * Medline Medical Encyclopedia
 * Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary


 * NHS Health Conditions (UK health service)
 * British National Foundry - drug reference guide for UK doctors
 * Drugs.com - medications, side effects, brand & generic names
 * International Classification of Diseases v10 (2016) - World Health Organization
 * DSM-5 - American psychiatric manual (2013) - many websites have the diagnostic criteria

ME/CFS High Quality sources (secondary sources)
 * Canadian Consensus Criteria for ME (2003) - Copy citation
 * International Consensus Criteria Primer for clinicians for Myalgic encephalomyelitis (2011) - Copy citation
 * Beyond Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome - Institute of Medicine report 2015 - especially for SEID - Copy citation
 * Fukuda criteria for CFS - Copy citation
 * PACE trial main outcome (2011) - Copy citation


 * OpenStax books - some images not for reuse

Searching for sources
 * ME Research UK very long list of articles
 * Google scholar
 * Google books
 * Science direct - many topics including book chapters
 * MedlinePlus

Suggested Image sources

 * WikiMedia Commons
 * Public Health Image Library - CDC
 * Google advanced images search - use the  images for re-use  option
 * Gray's anatomy - all have a public domain license since copyright has expired

Tertiary/secondary vs primary sources
If you have worked on medical pages on Wikipedia before, you may be aware that they encourage the use of reference books (tertiary sources), and review articles (secondary sources). There are few review articles on ME/CFS, so it is acceptable to cite primary sources, so long as you use the equivocal language described above.

Important studies and the age of works
The goal in scientific writing is to represent the most up-to-date information. For that reason, in biomedical research it's important to make the attempt to find primary and secondary sources that were published in the past several years.

An exception to this general guideline are particularly influential studies called seminal works. These notable studies are publications that changes the way the field thinks about a topic. Did your source define something new or introduce a novel idea? If so, it may be a seminal work.

A second exception are works that focus on history or discuss a sequence of events as an important aspect of the narrative.

A good example in ME might be the Fukuda criteria (1994) that presented a working definition for 'CFS'. Because it defines something new, it makes sense to cite it even in a modern paper, or in an article that discusses the history of ME. The notable studies category lists these key studies.

Remember Wikipedia is not a reliable source
According to Wikipedia itself, Wikipedia is not a reliable source.

Instead of referencing Wikipedia, check claims on Wikipedia to see if they are verified by a reliable source. If they are, add the information citing that source instead.

In vivo or in vitro studies
Studies on humans or animals are in vivo studies, studies on tissue, cells, etc are in vitro studies. Human studies carry the most weight. No animal models of chronic fatigue syndrome are generally accepted.

Clinical trial phases
Clinical trials that have been classified by the FDA are given a phase number. Phase 3 and Phase 4 clinical trials are required for a drug to be approved for a particular use, so these trials carry the most scientific weight.

Randomized controlled trials
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are often regarded as a "good standard" in research; they involve patients being allocated randomly to a group and the use of a similar control group. Blinded RCTs mean the patients don't know what treatment they are getting - it may be dummy pills. In unblinded RCTs patients know the treatment they are getting, so the risk of a placebo effect is higher. In double-blinded trials, neither the patient nor the investigator knows the treatment being provided, so both the risk of a placebo effect and the risk of investigator bias are reduced. Subjective outcomes are a matter of the doctor's or patient's opinion, such as the patient questionnaires used in the unblinded PACE trial. These are less reliable than objective outcomes such as the distance walked, heart rate data, or other scientifically measured results. The PACE trial's outcome switching involved changing from an objective outcome (distance walked in 6 mins) to a subjective one (questionnaires about if patients feel better). Since outcome switching can suggest bias, it reduces the strength of conclusions, and is particularly risky for an unblinded trial.