tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22763131.post8118453263432738161..comments2007-10-08T12:40:18.964ZJon Brasseynoreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22763131.post-11184781207475371402007-10-08T12:40:00.000Z2007-10-08T12:40:00.000ZI can agree on you first point (that's why I like TRIP), but in a strict sense this has nothing to do with the systematic search.Martinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13078597404766627102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22763131.post-38160099902821403012007-10-08T11:23:00.000Z2007-10-08T11:23:00.000ZI can see 3 potential advantages of using TRIP to help underpin a systematic review.<BR/><BR/>1) In carrying out a SR it's useful to see if previous SRs have been published. TRIP contains a lot of SRs not in somewhere like medline.<BR/><BR/>2) If the searcher is using OVID that will not be as up to date as the pubmed interface we use.<BR/><BR/>3) I think TRIP could be seen as useful to locate any other material that might be deemed worthwhile. <BR/><BR/>The first one is a strong reason and the other two are more tenuous!<BR/><BR/>jonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22763131.post-5726514715325977662007-10-08T11:03:00.000Z2007-10-08T11:03:00.000ZWell, the urology article does not mention how many articles were contributed bei TRIP.<BR/>Frankly, I don't see a role for TRIP in doing systematic searches for RCTs . I'd like to know how you see your role in that...<BR/>MartinMartinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13078597404766627102noreply@blogger.com