Describing recency

Describing when medical information was generated (e.g. new evidence, discoveries) is commonplace and often essential within articles.

When providing these descriptions, the preference is to avoid the use of 'recent', variations thereof (e.g. 'recently'), and synonyms thereof (e.g. 'new', 'latest', etc.). As medical science continuously evolves, information that was once labeled as being 'recent' inevitably becomes outdated, and thus, the description inevitably becomes inaccurate and misleading. Instead, if such a descriptor is required, a date as the time-based descriptor should be used, accompanied by an appropriate citation. However, a time-based descriptor is often unnecessary because a citation is required.

For example:

• incorrect: "In a recent meta-analysis ^ref, it was found..."

• correct

  • "In a meta-analysis ^ref, it was found..."

  • "In a 2019 meta-analysis ^ref, it was found..."

Similarly, the use of the word 'currently' is also discouraged in articles. Text within articles is assumed to be, and should ideally be, current at the time of writing (or last edit); thus, the use of 'currently' is often inherently unnecessary. If 'currently' must be used (e.g. in the context of a rapidly developing field of treatment or newfound medical discovery/condition), a date should also be added, including at least the year.

For example:

• incorrect: "There are currently no disease-modifying treatments available ^ref."

• correct

  • "There are no disease-modifying treatments available ^ref."

  • "There are no disease-modifying treatments available (as of March 2024) ^ref." or "There are no disease-modifying treatments available (c. March 2024) ^ref."

  • "There are no disease-modifying treatments available (as of 2024) ^ref." or "There are no disease-modifying treatments available (c. 2024) ^ref."