Trip Database Blog

TRIP is frequently mentioned in systematic reviews as one of the sources searched for relevant studies.  In fact the mentions seems to be accelerating and below are 5 recent examples:

• Relative effectiveness of clinic and home blood pressure monitoring compared with ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in diagnosis of hypertension: systematic review (BMJ)
• Adequacy of reporting monitoring regimens of risk factors for cardiovascular disease in clinical guidelines: systematic review (BMJ)
• Available evidence does not support use of oxalates for dentine hypersensitivity (Evidence Based Dentistry)
• Effectiveness of smoking cessation programs for seriously mentally ill (Actas Españolas de Psiquiatría)
• Rigour of development does not AGREE with recommendations in practice guidelines on the use of ice for acute ankle (BMJ Quality & Safety)

I can’t help feeling we’re doing something right!

Quite a milestone, over the weekend we hit 20,000 registered users.

We’re currently adding 1,000 new registered users every 3-4 weeks (this has been consistent over many months).  We’re really pleased with this. However, it does put the onus on TRIP to create an even better product/experience for registrants.

We’ve had lots of feedback on Blitter, mostly positive but some less so (but constructive).

As such we’ve re-designed it, to emphasise our view that it’s principally a search tool (as opposed to a news service).

Give it a whirl and let me know what you think.

http://blitter.tripdatabase.com/

This isn’t really a proper TRIP product, more an experimental one! 

http://blitter.tripdatabase.com/

The idea behind Blitter is that it only includes content that an independent clinician has deemed interesting/newsworthy enough to comment about. Most clinical search tools grab all the content from a particular publisher – irrespective of the clinical usefulness of the output. So, we see Blitter as being a bottom up approach to content identification – possibly making it more useful.

In addition we have classified each contributor by their clinical interest allowing users to filter results based on the speciality of the contributor – this is possibly an important development. Why? Take the search term pain, an oncologist searching for pain would typically want significantly different results compared to a rheumatologist or a generalist. Currently TRIP and all other clinical search tools show the same results – meaning lots of ‘noise’. So, allowing users to restrict the results based on speciality should make the results more meaningful.