Questions about UpToDate
There’s been another big surge in online discussion of UpToDate recently.
- Linda Spadaccini asks via a post to MEDLIB-L if other libraries have considered requesting that their “…physicians or medical staff office pay for it…”
- Also via a post to MEDLIB-L, Chris Williams asks if others are enjoying the same clear documentation and friendly customer service that Chris is experiencing.
- Intueri points out UpToDate’s extraordinary pricing and makes some comparisons to DynaMed.
- Dr. RW asks: Are you UpToDate Dependent?
- Ves Dimov at Clinical Cases and Images continues on the theme of UpToDate dependence, reminding us to “…beware the man of a single book (homo unius libri)…”
Prediction: As time passes, UpToDate will have more and more well-designed, well-maintained, effectively-marketed, affordable competitors. The competition will bring subscription costs down to a more reasonable level.
To keep up with future commentary on UpToDate from the medical blogosphere, subscribe to this MedWorm feed.
Like this post? Subscribe to the RSS feed!
August 2nd, 2007 at 6:55 pm
Hi David,
Thanks for the MedWorm feed – but there seems to be a problem with the link. Try this one:
http://www.medworm.com/rss/userss.php?qu=uptodate+%22up+to+date%22&news=on&consumer=on&journals=on&organizations=on&info=on&blogs=on&title=MedWorm+Query%3A+uptodate+%22up+to+date%22
Best!
Frankie
August 2nd, 2007 at 7:01 pm
Fixed, Frankie!
August 2nd, 2007 at 7:02 pm
Second thoughts, I think that this simpler feed works better:
http://www.medworm.com/rss/userss.php?qu=uptodate&news=on&consumer=on&journals=on&organizations=on&info=on&blogs=on&title=MedWorm+Query%3A+uptodate
The other one went a little off topic with “up to date” in the query.