Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

Jump to content

Talk:UpToDate

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 12 years ago by TenOfAllTrades in topic Removed promotional-sounding statement

Removed promotional-sounding statement

[edit]

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]

  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.
  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)
  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.
  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)

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