Resource Comparison Chart

Easy to use

MedlinePlus

eTextbooks

Clinical Info
Tools

Journals

Hard to use

Basic
information
about a topic

MedlinePlus,
eTextbooks

Clinical Info
Tools,
eTextbooks

Clinical Info
Tools

Journals

Most
specialized
material

Most
understandable

MedlinePlus

Clinical Info
Tools,
eTextbooks

Journals

Most jargon

eTextbooks

Most outdated

Wikipedia,
the web

Least
authoritative

Most recent
material
Most
authoritative
(i.e., most
believable)

Clinical Info
eTextbooks
Tools
The resources we have provided are considered
to be authoritative. The issues that confuse this
simple idea are that older material may become
incorrect, information from any source may be
tainted by personal opinion, and new hot off the
presses material may prove to be incorrect or
incomplete.
Journals

MedlinePlus: Wikipedia, Google and WebMD would also fall into this broad category, although the user
of Wikipedia must be even more diligent to assure that the material is accurate
eTextbooks: AccessMedicine, AccessPharmacy, ACP Medicine, ACS Surgery
Clinical Information Tools: UpToDate, ACP Pier, Essential Evidence Plus
Journals: Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed

Background vs. Foreground Questions in Biomedicine

Background
Widely understood to be true
Basis for more complete understanding
Usually older material
Often found in more easily used sources
(MedlinePlus, Wikipedia, encyclopedias,
dictionaries, textbooks)
Often found in sources with less confusing medical
terminology

Foreground
Less likely to be known except among those with a
great deal of subject expertise
Adds specific element(s) to basic understanding;
must have basic knowledge for foreground
information to have meaning
Usually newer material
Often found in more difficult sources (biomedical
databases such as MEDLINE)
Often laden with dense biomedicalisms
(biomedical databases)