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