Read How Web 2.0 is changing medicine – by Dean Giustini
Christmas is just around the corner and things are starting to settle down. In other words the number of questions we’re answering has started to drop and the number of searches on TRIP has declined. So we’re having a gentle relax until the upswing of activity in 2007. I’m hoping our servers have a nice break too!
Thank you to everyone who has supported us in 2006. I started 2006 hoping to have TRIP free-access by the end of the year. In the end this important event happened in September, earlier than I had hoped. The move to free-access will be my defining memory for 2006. For 2007, it’s got to be…..
….. Gwagle.
Best wishes
jon and the rest of the TRIP team.
“You” have been named as Time magazine’s Person of the Year for the growth and influence of user-generated content on the internet.
“It’s about the many wresting power from the few and helping one another for nothing and how that will not only change the world, but also change the way the world changes,” Time magazine’s Lev Grossman writes.
We have just taken delivery of the TRIP Database leaflets – very nice they look too!
If you would like to order some, let us know via the Contact Us section of TRIP (with your mailing address). We are envisaging sending 50 leaflets per ‘order’ but if you want more or less, just let us know. For those who have recently requested leaflets we’ll send them out ASAP.
It would appear that the NEJM and BMJ are both redeveloping their site.
The NEJM beta site has some innovative features including a search widget for the Yahoo toolbar (but not the industry ‘standard’ Google) and a rather nice new search feature. As TRIP has done for years it returns results using a hierarchical display. Their hierarchy is different including ‘most recent articles’, ‘most viewed articles’ and ‘reviews’.
The BMJ has a redevelopment blog. I’ve always liked the BMJ website, except when they removed free-access. It appears they are embracing web 2.0 – except for a really crucial part – today, it is about the advertiser paying, not the end user. Will this mixed approach work? I’m sure it will the new site will be a big ‘hit’. But making it free-access (albeit via a login) would allow greater access, and quite possibly even more financially viable….
From our search statistics it’s clear to see how our use has dramatically increased. But what about sites linking to TRIP? Using the Maketleap link popularity check allows links to TRIP, aggregated from numerous search engines, to be measured. These figures stretch back to 2002.
Not sure how meaningful the graph is. But as with the search statistics it’s heading in the right direction.
Finally, the TRIP Database has resurrected the auto e-mail function!
Via My-TRIP users can record kewords of interest. When new material is added to TRIP a match is undertaken and any matches are e-mailed to the user. Reviewing the functionality shows that some work is needed to improve My-TRIP (when we get the money!). However, the core functionality is there.
Onwards and upwards!
There are an awful lot of journals aimed at practicing clinicians. Most of the output is junk!
BMJ Updates tries to overcome this problem and does a great job. As the blurb on the site says:
“all citations (from over 110 premier clinical journals) are pre-rated for quality by research staff, then rated for clinical relevance and interest by at least 3 members of a worldwide panel of practicing physicians.”
In a nutshell they have a least 3 people review every article in the 110 journals to decide whether or not they are clinically relevent or newsworthy – as well as being methodologically sound. They root out around 90% of all articles – so only the top 10% of articles are considered appropriate for inclusion BMJ Updates.
As mentioned above I really rate BMJ Updates, it’s superb. But surely the issue is that 90% of the initial articles going into these journals are not really clinically worthy/useful. In addition, or instead of, why aren’t all articles pre-critically appraised before inclusion; why aren’t they assessed for clinical worth?
I suppose the obvious answer is that if 90% of articles are removed – as they’re junk – from a monthly publication, you go from 12 issues a year to 1.2 issues. Therefore, making it uneconomically viable. Who controls the journals and, to a large extent, are agenda setters – journal editors. So, to make a significant change from the journals, we’re asking turkeys to vote for Christmas.
I suppose academia is also ‘guility’. All those RAE points that are needed can only help contribute to quantity not quality.
Why not have journals that only publish documents that meet certain quality criteria, come pre-critically appraised and are clinically useful? I have a feeling I’m exposing my niavity!
See Askville – something similar may be seen in Gwagle…
Trip Database Blog 
Recent Comments