UpToDate vs PubMed Clinical Queries

This comparison strikes me as unfair.  It's like comparing a textbook to an article.  Apples to oranges. From the discussion:

PubMed Cilnical Queries is a set of search filters for separating valid and relevant articles out of the repository of PubMed citations. Thus limits its clinical efficiency; because: a) Searching for one question may yield multiple high quality articles that present different answers, which the clinician does not have time to evaluate comprehensively. b) Few articles compare all management options for a given health problem. Therefore if the clinicians intend to decide between all possible options, they would have to review several studies systematically to inform their decision making. This is time consuming and also requires expertise.

On the other hand, UpToDate is highly efficient; because a) the information is organized in entries rather than articles; each discusses a complaint (e.g. chest pain), disease (e.g. acute coronary syndrome) or a category (e.g. diagnosis) of a disease; if a special issue needs further discussion, another entry would be specified to it (e.g. cholesterol lowering after an acute coronary syndrome). Thus, the clinician is guided to alternation and is not overwhelmed with information. b) The information is provided by integrating the best available evidence by experts to address all management options for a given health problem and most of the recommendations are graded on the basis of their level of evidence. Thus, clinicians can use the recommendations knowing that all options are considered and the best one is recommended.

Yes, searching PubMed and other citation resources takes time and critically appraising individual studies, even systematic reviews, is impractical.  And, yes, point of care resources that provide topic syntheses are very valuable clinical tools, precisely because they synthesize the literature.  Maybe this comparison would work if PubMed had a team of editors that compiled and summarized studies, and then provided clinical recommendations based on that initial legwork.  But, it doesn't.  It's a database of citations, with a set of (effective) filters that assist searchers in finding evidence.  Very different.