This year we did two lists, one chosen by the Editors, the other a numeric tally of what’s read on line by the Readers.
The “When to start” issue was the top story from the Editors.
The big hit from Readers was the case of occupational exposure from a source patient who refused testing. (I posted it here this past June.)
Not much overlap between the two lists, reflecting I think several issues:
Editors are choosing from scientific advances; the readers from what they find clinically useful or interesting. They can be the same thing, but they don’t have to be. (Hardly doubt many were counting on IL-2 to enter the clinics this year, for example.)
What people read on-line may be different from what they consider important. Some on-line stuff is just fun. Or funny. Or controversial.