|WikiProject Medicine||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
Removed promotional-sounding statement
I have removed the following passage as a bit of dubious marketing-speak, poorly supported by the references provided.
- Campbell R, Ash J (October 2006). "An evaluation of five bedside information products using a user-centered, task-oriented approach". J Med Libr Assoc. 94 (4): 435–41, e206–7. PMC . PMID 17082836.
- Ely JW, Osheroff JA, Chambliss ML, Ebell MH, Rosenbaum ME (2005). "Answering physicians' clinical questions: obstacles and potential solutions". J Am Med Inform Assoc. 12 (2): 217–24. doi:10.1197/jamia.M1608. PMC . PMID 15561792.
- Leff B, Harper GM (May 2006). "The reading habits of medicine clerks at one medical school: frequency, usefulness, and difficulties". Acad Med. 81 (5): 489–94. doi:10.1097/01.ACM.0000222273.90705.a6. PMID 16639211.
- Lai CJ, Aagaard E, Brandenburg S, Nadkarni M, Wei HG, Baron R (May 2006). "Brief report: Multiprogram evaluation of reading habits of primary care internal medicine residents on ambulatory rotations". J Gen Intern Med. 21 (5): 486–9. doi:10.1111/j.1525-1497.2006.00432.x. PMC . PMID 16704393.
The "may improve patient care and quality" is a bit of marketing waffle. (If there was conclusive, robust evidence there wouldn't be a "may"; as it stands, the sentence is equally true – and equally useless – if one writes "may not improve patient care".) Obviously, there are four citations offered, not "more than 30"; in any case, this is the sort of claim best supported by a proper secondary source or meta-analyses, not by piling up as many little primary papers as the marketing department can find. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:09, 4 May 2014 (UTC)