PubMed is probably the most used search tool in the medical world. As such we are often asked how does Trip differ from PubMed? Or, put it another way, why should we bother with Trip? If you ask ChatGPT it states:

“The Trip Database is a clinical search engine focused on delivering evidence-based summaries, guidelines, and tools for healthcare professionals, making it user-friendly for clinical decision-making. PubMed, by contrast, is a comprehensive repository of biomedical research articles, aimed at researchers and clinicians needing in-depth primary studies. Trip emphasizes practical application, while PubMed is broader and research-oriented.“

But, practically how does this manifest itself? Below is an example that can illustrate the differences. The search stems from a likely clinician question. Trip is focussed on clinical decision making so we focus on the clinical question scenario. As ChatGPT states, PubMed’s aim is broader – so has to accommodate more diverse needs.

Prostate Cancer Screening

Here are the top 3 side-by-side (Trip on the left-hand side):

The top three from Trip are all secondary evidence ie higher quality compared to PubMed’s. One of PubMed’s article is a case report and two are about imaging. Below is the top ten:

TripPubMed
Stockholm3 for prostate cancer screening (NICE) A case of primary duodenal Brunner’s gland hamartoma that gradually underwent morphological changes over a period of 10 years (DEN Open)
MRI screening for prostate cancer shows promise (NIHR Evidence)Posttreatment Lower Urinary Tract and Prostate Imaging (Urol Clin North Am)
Rising metastatic prostate cancer rates and better noninvasive testing: might PSA screening make a comeback? (Clinical Correlations)The Role of Nuclear Medicine in Imaging and Therapy of Prostate Cancer: The State of the Art (Urol Clin North Am)
Canadian Urological Association recommendations on prostate cancer screening and early diagnosis (Canadian Urological Association)Urologic Imaging of the Prostate: Cancer and Mimics (Urol Clin North Am)
Prostate Cancer Screening (PDQ Cancer Information)2D Fe/Co-MOF/SOX cascade reactors for fast noninvasive detection of sarcosine level in prostate cancer urine (J Colloid Interface Sci)
Prostate cancer screening with the PSA test (Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Healthcare)Benign prostatic hyperplasia genetic variants in Asians (Clin Chim Acta)
A Detailed Evaluation of the Effect of Prostate-specific Antigen-based Screening on Morbidity and Mortality of Prostate Cancer: 21-year Follow-up Results of the Rotterdam Section of the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (European Urology and EvidenceUpdates)Comparison of Morphological and Functional MRI Assessments of Periprostatic Fat for Predicting Prostate Cancer Aggressiveness (Int Braz J Urol)
Prostate-Specific Antigen Screening and 15-Year Prostate Cancer Mortality: A Secondary Analysis of the CAP Randomized Clinical Trial (JAMA)Single‑center, retrospective, evaluator‑blinded, pilot and pivotal clinical trials: Assessing the mirCaP Kit (hsv2‑miR‑H9/hsa‑miR‑3659) as a diagnostic marker for prostate cancer in patients with PSA levels in the gray zone (Oncol Lett)
Which men benefit from prostate cancer screening? Prostate cancer mortality by subgroup in the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (BJU international)The State-of-the-Art PET Tracers in Glioblastoma and High-grade Gliomas and Implications for Theranostics (PET Clin)
Prostate cancer screening with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test (BMJ Rapid Recommendations)Photoelectrochemical biosensors: Prospects of graphite carbon nitride-based sensors in prostate-specific antigen diagnosis (Anal Biochem)

We asked ChatGPT to compare the results and from the perspective of a busy health professional with a clinical question relating to prostate cancer screening that affects patient care. We also asked it to consider the quality of the evidence.

It concluded: “For a busy health professional addressing a clinical question about prostate cancer screening, Trip Database provides a more focused, clinically actionable, and evidence-based set of results. Its emphasis on guidelines and systematic reviews ensures better support for patient care. In contrast, PubMed excels in breadth and niche research but lacks the specificity and usability required for immediate clinical decision-making.“

Pretty clear….

We will continue to generate these comparisons, it’s useful to help explain the strengths of Trip