Trip Database Blog

This has a beta natural language processign feature which I’ve been trying out.

Is metformin safe in pregnancy? – poor result

Why do you use dexamethasone in ivf? – good result

Is a BNP blood test a good screening test for identifying heart failure? – no answers

After much re-arranging of the terms, cutting out ‘bits and bobs’…

Is b-type natriuretic peptide useful in heart failure? – average answer

Often, when answering clinical questions I look for background on Google. Answers.com might be a useful place to look. I have a slight concern about bias creeping in as it’s not clear how they create their answer. For instance they (answers.com) may say that drug X is useful which might then cloud my judgement. The fact that answers.com may have obtained their answer from the pharma company responsible for the drug is initially hidden.

Transparency seems to be the key.

We frequently receive requests for free access for conferences/workshops – we’re always happy to oblige. It looks like we’ve received our last request before going ‘free’. The Evidence-Based Health Care Workshop in Colorado has asked for free access. Bad timing as they want access from 31st July to 30th August. People attending the conference will get acquainted with the subscription version. Then, the next day (31st August) TRIP will move to free-access as well as having an overhaul of how the search system works!

We’re currently waiting to receive the beta-version of the ‘new’ free TRIP – should be within the next week. Assuming there is nothing too badly wrong with it we’ll go free as of 31st August. Why the 31st? Our web c0mpany doesn’t like launching new sites on a Friday (which is the 1st September). Therefore, the free version will go live in the evening (UK time) on the 31st August – the Thursday!

Yep, talks, via a podcast

Google preparing health portal; pitching WebMD and Intuit as partners

An interesting entry on Dean’s blog about web 2.0 . Not being particularly technical I struggle with terms such as ‘web 2.0’! However, following some links it appears to be a move from static web-content to content that a user can interact with and alter – if they desire. Dean’s blog entry links to a EBM 2.0 brainstorm from the guy who runs the clinical cases blog.

So how can we let users improve the TRIP Database and for that matter the Q&A Services?

For Q&A I’ve often wanted a ‘rapid response’ style service (as seen on the BMJ). This allows a reader of a particular paper to raise issues. With Q&A we’re a rapid service that doesn’t claim to undertake a systematic review. I’m convinced that user input would enhance the service. The slight problem being that those that control the services aren’t as keen as me!

With regard to TRIP I see two main ways:

1) With the advent of the new TRIP algorithm we can ‘weight’ various variables (date of publication, ‘quality’ of publisher etc). I actually think Dean suggested this bit. But every time people click on a link it can be taken as a ‘vote’ for that paper. Next time that article scores more highly (i.e. returned higher in the results). This allows users to decide what sources they feel are best (as opposed to just the clinical team at TRIP). A few assumptions mixed it – some would like the title of an article and view it and think it’s rubbish. However, this could well balance out.

2) Comments. Allow users to attach comments on a particular article – things they like, clinical application etc. I think this is a great idea but not convinced it’d be well used. It could form part of my plan to create a record for each article. This could include an Amazon-style ‘People who looked at this article also looked at these….’

For user participation in search try Digg.

According to the paper in BioMed Central’s ‘Medical Informatics and Decision Making‘ this paper (click here):

“The LCS system is designed to provide full text evidence-based literature with critical appraisal in response to a clinical question asked by a physician who may be at a remote or rural site. “

It appears to be a type of Q&A service. Not sure about the turnaround time they aim to achieve although this is an outcome to be measured. I always wonder what ‘real’ impact using full-text has. On one level it adds to the robustness of the answer. However, the extent of this difference may be clinically insignificant. Also it invariably adds to costs and turnaround time.

I had an interesting meeting with the NLH regarding an extension to the Q&A service. One issue that came up was repeat questions and the need to update them. Perhaps the biggest discussion focussed on what to do with the old questions once updated. My view was to leave them on the site as much as a historical record, as a mark of the evolution of ‘knowledge’. A few days later a great example of this: the use of watchful waiting in inguinal hernias.

In the initial answer (click here), which was answered in December 2005, there was a lack of trial data but it was reported that a trial would be reporting shortly. Moving into the present day and our answer (click here) reports on the findings of that trial.

Is that significant? I believe so. Previously the ‘expert’ view was supportive of watchful waiting, now there is trial data to support that view. In the space of 6 months a clinical uncertainty has been reduced.

http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/060623-151210

Google to focus on London for next phase of growth is the title of an article in The Times.

In Britain there is one mobile phone for every person, while in some parts of Scandinavia mobile ownership is almost double that rate. “Looking at these numbers, it becomes very obvious that in the future people will want to access information on the web with a device they carry with them,”