CACrown ArchivesThe cinema collection
EN/FR
Search
Menu
Research dossier · General Reference

Current Opinion (Current Drugs)

series of medical journals published by Current Drugs

Cross-disciplinary reference desk with index cards, atlas, dictionary and catalogue
General referenceInterpretive dossier study · Crown Archives visual atlas
Record originEnglish Wikipedia
Text licenseCC BY-SA 4.0
Source revisionJan 31, 2021
Entity authorityQ48969812 ↗
Source-derived summary

Current Opinion is a series of medical journals published by Current Drugs from 1998 to 2010. Current Drugs was acquired by Thomson Corporation in 2004.

Editorial summary

The public source identifies “Current Opinion (Current Drugs)” as series of medical journals published by Current Drugs. This brief keeps that definition visible, then builds a research path around Current, Opinion and Drugs.

Editorial reviewA practical starting point whose main value is the path it opens into stronger specialist and primary sources. The current lead gives the account dated anchors—1998, 2010, 2004—that can be checked directly. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. Its value is orientation rather than verdict, with Current, Opinion and Drugs providing the first useful test.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

A short description can identify a subject without explaining its stakes. For “Current Opinion (Current Drugs)”, the useful work is to connect “series of medical journals published by Current Drugs” to the records capable of establishing context and consequence.

Evidence profile

Named sources, stable identifiers and responsible institutions provide the strongest route from overview to verifiable evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated Jan 31, 2021. The linked authority identifier is Q48969812. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1998, 2010 and 2004.

Critical limits

Overview language is designed for orientation and should not be treated as a substitute for the evidence cited beneath it. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.

How to read it

Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.

Best used for
  • Subject orientation
  • Search vocabulary
  • Locating named sources
Verify next

The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.

Three-step research path

  1. Establish the record: confirm the title “Current Opinion (Current Drugs)”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow Current Opinion (Current Drugs) primary sources, Current Opinion (Current Drugs) archive and Current research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
  3. Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.

Questions for further research

  1. Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Current Opinion (Current Drugs)”?
  2. Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
  3. What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
Subject index

Search terms from this dossier

Source & attribution

This entry incorporates text from “Current Opinion (Current Drugs)” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.