I have been using this source as well as quite many of my colleagues and
students who really love it (in use at leading medical schools and
universities, in my country, in US and elsewhere).
Although it has not the formal format of other synthesized source I use
(as Cochrane or Clinical Evidence), I see the following advantages:
it's more comprehensive (many more clinical questions addressed), more
rapidly updated (and expanded to new fields) and in a sense a bit more
integrative (an attempt is made to present the rationale behind expert
opinion or current practice).
It could be further improved by more transparent feedbacks & criticisms
from readers, by full disclosure for potential conflicts of interests by
authors and by a large reduction of subscription fees (increased usage
would probably even increase their profits).
I hope this helps.
Mayer Brezis, MD MPH
Professor of Medicine
Center for Clinical Quality & Safety
Hadassah-Hebrew University Hospital
Mike Bennett wrote:
>I have some students with us in Australia for an elective who regularly use
>UpToDate (www.uptodate.com) as a source of clinical information. Their
>University Medical School (Groningen) pays for access for the staff and
>students. I am not familiar with this resource, but wonder whether it has
>advantages over other (less costly) resources of secondary evidence.
>What are people's experiences with this resource?