Are my colleagues still using textbooks? If so, for what reason? Are there not more current materials on whatever topic readily available online, particularly if one has electronic library access?
A colleague responded:
A new (4th edition) "Aicardi" is, I gather, in progress, albeit now with several editors. In a 2009 review of the 3rd edition I wrote (quoting himself): 'Some would question the point of a book such as this when so much information — obviously even more up to date — is instantly available on the internet. Rightly, I think, Aicardi argues that while electronic databases provide last-minute results in a fragmentary and uncritical manner, a book of this kind gives a balanced overview taking into account the experience of the authors and that "this synthetic and critical process is more essential than ever in view of the abundance of the material available."'
I responded:
If I am looking for a "synthetic and critical process" regarding a given topic, I can go to PubMed and access the list of review articles which have been written on this topic. Of course I need to be judicious about what I read; this is true of what I read in a textbook, as well. I'm realizing that I may be in a privileged position; I generally have online access to these articles through a university library. There are, as well, sources, such as Emedicine, MedLink Neurology and UpToDate (the latter two requiring subscription), as well as Gene Reviews at GeneTests and the excellent neuromuscular site at Washington University.
No comments:
Post a Comment