| dbp:reason
|
- primary source (en)
- Primary research, should be replaced with information from the reviews cited elsewhere (en)
- The article DOI/PMID cited is a primary source which appears to be the desired article and is a primary source — the article title is incorrect here, so I'm not completely sure this is the intended citation (en)
- This source is a case report, but the following source is okay. (en)
- Multiple case reports cited as case reports, but a review would be better (en)
- Likely can cite this to a review article instead of a primary study (en)
- Case report (en)
- Case series/observational study (en)
- One study — should find a secondary source for a recommendation like this (en)
- Multiple case reports are the only citations here. (en)
- Primary research (en)
- Retrospective analysis of one institution (en)
- This is a "commentary", not even a study (en)
- This is an editorial, not a peer-reviewed source (en)
- Single retrospective study of 18 individuals, basically a case report (en)
- I think this can be reworded to be acceptable based on this primary source, but as it's worded now I think it needs some work, but I'm not able to identify the best way to do that (en)
- This is from 1992, there are likely newer guidelines/reviews to cite here (en)
- Needs a secondary source for this information or to be presented as a single study (en)
- This is a study — likely can replace this source/sentence with the treatment guidelines referenced above (en)
|