Talk:Evidence-based medicine/Draft: Difference between revisions
imported>D. Matt Innis (→Too many sections?: done) |
imported>Robert Badgett No edit summary |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
Agree it can be cut.[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 11:46, 12 March 2008 (CDT) | Agree it can be cut.[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 11:46, 12 March 2008 (CDT) | ||
Can we cut out the sentences like "For more information, see: Clinical practice guideline" and instead a) link the phrase at first appearance and b) add to the related articles subpage?[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 11:48, 12 March 2008 (CDT) | Can we cut out the sentences like "For more information, see: Clinical practice guideline" and instead a) link the phrase at first appearance and b) add to the related articles subpage?[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 11:48, 12 March 2008 (CDT) | ||
===Responses to too many sections=== | |||
I agree succinct is nice; however, I find that WikiPedia can be hard to follow when a topic is scattered over several pages. I am not as bothered by the length. In part because I do not see further sections that can easily be lopped off and put in their own pages. Maybe the metric section could be moved to a statistics article. We have already separate pages for [[Teaching evidence-based medicine]] and [[Evidence-based individual decision making]]. Should these have been subpages?? I suggest leaving clinical practice guidelines represented in the TOC so the concept is not lost. | |||
# As nobody complained about my suggestion Feb 21 to delete the "Why do we need EBM", I have done so. | |||
# In the sections "Methods proposed for assessing validity" and "Criticisms of EBM" I made the subsections not appear in the TOC. | |||
# I moved publication bias content to article of that name. | |||
# I removed the section heading "Methods proposed for assessing validity" but left the content. This content should be merged with the later occurring section titled "Levels of evidence". | |||
- Bob - [[User:Robert Badgett|Robert Badgett]] 15:48, 12 March 2008 (CDT) | |||
I think there is more that can be done. Question: ok if I move most of informatics content to the existing article of that name? | |||
Revision as of 14:48, 12 March 2008
Too many sections?
I'm sure this article is excellent, but, without reading it, I wonder if we could sensibly and usefully reduce the number of headings? This tends to interrupt the flow of the article. Actually, so many headings actually makes it hard for a "flow," or a narrative, to develop in the first place. Please see Article Mechanics on this; the longer version goes into this in some detail. --Larry Sanger 22:03, 21 February 2008 (CST)
Hey, this page needs to be archived! It's getting very long! --Larry Sanger 22:03, 21 February 2008 (CST)
- Okay, I archived for a fresh new outlook. --D. Matt Innis 11:58, 12 March 2008 (CDT)
- I cut out some stuff. Also, does anybody mind if I cut out the section "Why do we need EBM"? I do not see that it adds much to the text in the introduction. Also, it contains no references. - Robert Badgett 22:14, 21 February 2008 (CST)
Agree it can be cut.Gareth Leng 11:46, 12 March 2008 (CDT) Can we cut out the sentences like "For more information, see: Clinical practice guideline" and instead a) link the phrase at first appearance and b) add to the related articles subpage?Gareth Leng 11:48, 12 March 2008 (CDT)
Responses to too many sections
I agree succinct is nice; however, I find that WikiPedia can be hard to follow when a topic is scattered over several pages. I am not as bothered by the length. In part because I do not see further sections that can easily be lopped off and put in their own pages. Maybe the metric section could be moved to a statistics article. We have already separate pages for Teaching evidence-based medicine and Evidence-based individual decision making. Should these have been subpages?? I suggest leaving clinical practice guidelines represented in the TOC so the concept is not lost.
- As nobody complained about my suggestion Feb 21 to delete the "Why do we need EBM", I have done so.
- In the sections "Methods proposed for assessing validity" and "Criticisms of EBM" I made the subsections not appear in the TOC.
- I moved publication bias content to article of that name.
- I removed the section heading "Methods proposed for assessing validity" but left the content. This content should be merged with the later occurring section titled "Levels of evidence".
- Bob - Robert Badgett 15:48, 12 March 2008 (CDT)
I think there is more that can be done. Question: ok if I move most of informatics content to the existing article of that name?