As mentioned in previous postings, it’s always very nice to see TRIP being mentioned in research articles. Two recent examples being:
- Prophylactic antibiotics in urodynamics: A systematic review of effectiveness and safety.
- Torn labial frenum in isolation not pathognomonic of physical abuse.
As a slight aside, but more good news for TRIP, we are getting very close to breaking the 150,000 searches per week.
October 8, 2007 at 11:03 am
Well, the urology article does not mention how many articles were contributed bei TRIP.>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…>Martin
October 8, 2007 at 11:23 am
I can see 3 potential advantages of using TRIP to help underpin a systematic review.>>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.>>2) If the searcher is using OVID that will not be as up to date as the pubmed interface we use.>>3) I think TRIP could be seen as useful to locate any other material that might be deemed worthwhile. >>The first one is a strong reason and the other two are more tenuous!>>jon
October 8, 2007 at 12:40 pm
I 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.