Talk:UpToDate

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Removed promotional-sounding statement

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have removed the following passage as a bit of dubious marketing-speak, poorly supported by the references provided.

More than 30 research surveys worldwide have shown that use of UpToDate may improve patient care and quality.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]

^ Campbell R, Ash J (October 2006). "An evaluation of five bedside information products using a user-centered, task-oriented approach". J Med Libr Assoc. 94 (4): 435–41, e206–7. PMC 1629448. PMID 17082836.
^ Ely JW, Osheroff JA, Chambliss ML, Ebell MH, Rosenbaum ME (2005). "Answering physicians' clinical questions: obstacles and potential solutions". J Am Med Inform Assoc. 12 (2): 217–24. doi:10.1197/jamia.M1608. PMC 551553. PMID 15561792.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
^ Leff B, Harper GM (May 2006). "The reading habits of medicine clerks at one medical school: frequency, usefulness, and difficulties". Acad Med. 81 (5): 489–94. doi:10.1097/01.ACM.0000222273.90705.a6. PMID 16639211.
^ Lai CJ, Aagaard E, Brandenburg S, Nadkarni M, Wei HG, Baron R (May 2006). "Brief report: Multiprogram evaluation of reading habits of primary care internal medicine residents on ambulatory rotations". J Gen Intern Med. 21 (5): 486–9. doi:10.1111/j.1525-1497.2006.00432.x. PMC 1484781. PMID 16704393.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

The "may improve patient care and quality" is a bit of marketing waffle. (If there was conclusive, robust evidence there wouldn't be a "may"; as it stands, the sentence is equally true – and equally useless – if one writes "may not improve patient care".) Obviously, there are four citations offered, not "more than 30"; in any case, this is the sort of claim best supported by a proper secondary source or meta-analyses, not by piling up as many little primary papers as the marketing department can find. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:09, 4 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Add topic

[pmid17082836-1] Campbell R, Ash J (October 2006). "An evaluation of five bedside information products using a user-centered, task-oriented approach". J Med Libr Assoc. 94 (4): 435–41, e206–7. PMC 1629448. PMID 17082836.

[pmid15561792-2] Ely JW, Osheroff JA, Chambliss ML, Ebell MH, Rosenbaum ME (2005). "Answering physicians' clinical questions: obstacles and potential solutions". J Am Med Inform Assoc. 12 (2): 217–24. doi:10.1197/jamia.M1608. PMC 551553. PMID 15561792.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

[pmid16639211-3] Leff B, Harper GM (May 2006). "The reading habits of medicine clerks at one medical school: frequency, usefulness, and difficulties". Acad Med. 81 (5): 489–94. doi:10.1097/01.ACM.0000222273.90705.a6. PMID 16639211.

[pmid16704393-4] Lai CJ, Aagaard E, Brandenburg S, Nadkarni M, Wei HG, Baron R (May 2006). "Brief report: Multiprogram evaluation of reading habits of primary care internal medicine residents on ambulatory rotations". J Gen Intern Med. 21 (5): 486–9. doi:10.1111/j.1525-1497.2006.00432.x. PMC 1484781. PMID 16704393.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]