Trouble with additional modified/reviwed dates - prefer not to use new fields

I am trying to get our web citations to look like this with our output style: 

Example 1 > Chlamy Center: an Online Informatics Resource for Chlamydomonas [Internet]. Durham (NC): Duke University, Department of Biology; [modified 2007 Mar 8]. Core collections; [modified 2006 Jan 25; cited 2007 Mar 27] Available from:

Example 2 > Complementary/Integrative Medicine [Internet]. Houston: University of Texas, M. D. Anderson Cancer Center; c2007. Bladder cancer; [cited 2007 Mar 27]. Available from:

It is likely easiest to do this using an field for modified/reviewed dates; however, are using up all of our user defined fields.  

Is there a way to use Date Accessed & Other to get the cited date, but also any modified/reviewed dates to appear in front? The cited date should always be present if there is a link. We’ve been trying to do it by putting the cited date in the Accessed Date field, and putting Modified Date in the Other part. We’ve set Other to appear first with “Separator between Other info and date” = "cited ". However, if there is no modified date, “cited” doesn’t appear. 

E.g. 2 if you put – 

Accessed date: 27/03/2007   OTHER:  modified 2006 Jan 25; (space included after)

You get  → [modified 2006 Jan 25; cited 2007 Mar 27]

E.g. 1 if you put – 

Accessed date: 27/03/2007   OTHER:  (blank)

You miss the word “cited”  → [2007 Mar 27]

Is there a way to get the “Separator between Other info and date” to always show?

As far as I can figure out we could also:

  • Always require the data entry person to put “cited” in the records so it shows up (awkward)

  • Deviate from Citing Medicine and always put the cited date first  so you can always precede the field by “cited” in the output style (not preferred, feels non-intuitive to us)

  • Find an unused field across all reference types to use for modified/reviewed dates

Do many people change rarely-used fields for other uses? (e.g. Address, Misc 2)

Any further ideas? 

Much appreciated!


You’re probably best off with the second option, changing the order of cited vs modified. Besides the User Defined fields, I don’t think there are any that are part of all of the reference types consistently. If you can identify one across all the types that no one would ever use, then that would probably work. Only problem I can see there is that in places like the output editor you would still see the default field names, wouldn’t you?

Thanks for your response, it’s good to confirm what my options are. Yes, unfortunately in the Output Style editor, you definitely do see the old field name even if you have changed it for the reference type(s). If we go with this option as vs. putting cited date first, I’ll have to make a formal list of what field is what for anyone else who does editing.