UpToDate is likely the most read medical reference tool - how did Harrison's, Cecil's, etc. manage to lose that war?

This the summary of my Twitter discussion with an academic nephrologist (by the way, the founding editor of UpToDate is also a nephrologist):

@DrVes: UpToDate is likely the most read medical reference tool, at least in the U.S. - how did Harrison's, Cecil's, etc. manage to lose that war?

@kidney_boy(Joel Topf): Reasons for UpToDate winning: Harrison's had no search, and an editorial style that told you about disease but not how to treat it

@DrVes: Exactly. It's amazing that those publishing companies didn't realize that they shipped "malfunctioning" product for years, and never fixed it.

@kidney_boy(Joel Topf): Harrison's is the great preclinical prof teaching pathophysiology, UpToDate is the smart clinician teaching you how to care for the patient with EBM.

@DrVes: UpToDate now has sections on pathophysiology, some of them quite good, check T-cells types, for example. Unfortunately, a lot of medical students get their basic pathology knowledge from Wikipedia nowadays. Just go to the library section where medical students are and have a look at the monitor screens during study time.

@kidney_boy(Joel Topf): Remember Harrison's is the youngest of the medical texts, it won by having regional approach (headache rather than CNS) to organization.

@DrVes: Classic-style textbooks (e.g. Harrisson's) feel like "half-book" nowadays. The doctors in training often find themselves asking "Where is the second part with treatment, updates, etc.?"
Shared publiclyView activity