/

OpenEvidence

  • What it is:OpenEvidence is a free AI-powered medical chat platform for verified US physicians that provides peer-reviewed, cited answers from journals like NEJM and JAMA to clinical questions at the point of care.
  • Best for:Verified US clinicians, Medical students (verified), Health systems with Epic EHR
  • Pricing:Free tier available, paid plans from Custom per-seat pricing
  • Rating:92/100Excellent
  • Expert's conclusion:What types of users will find OpenEvidence best-suited for their purposes as an AI-powered clinical decision support tool?
Visit website
Reviewed byMaxim Manylov·Web3 Engineer & Serial Founder

What Is OpenEvidence and What Does It Do?

OpenEvidence is an American artificial intelligence (AI) technology firm that is developing a medical search engine for clinical decision support to provide physicians with evidence-based answers based upon the 35,000,000 plus peer reviewed articles in the literature. Developed by Daniel Nadler, the platform is free to all verified U.S. healthcare professionals and generates revenue through advertising and pharmaceutical company partnerships. The platform uses cited responses and specialized medical AI models to address the issue of information overload in the medical literature.

Active
📍Miami, Florida
📅Founded 2022
🏢Private
TARGET SEGMENTS
US PhysiciansHealthcare ProfessionalsClinicians

What Are OpenEvidence's Key Business Metrics?

📊
430,000+ (40% of US physicians)
Registered Physicians
📊
8.5M+
Monthly Consultations
📊
35M+
Medical Publications Indexed
📊
$210M at $3.5B valuation
Funding Raised
📊
$3.5B
Funding Valuation
Regulated By
HIPAA Compliant(USA)

How Credible and Trustworthy Is OpenEvidence?

92/100
Excellent

The physician adoption rate has been exceptional; the scale of the platform is large; the platform is compliant with HIPAA regulations; and the no hallucination policy demonstrates high levels of trustworthiness for clinical decision support.

BREAKDOWN
Product Maturity95/100
Company Stability95/100
Security & Compliance90/100
User Reviews90/100
Transparency95/100
Support Quality85/100
TRUST SIGNALS
430K+ verified US physicians8.5M monthly clinical consultationsHIPAA compliant$3.5B valuationPartnerships with NEJM, JAMA, AMANo-hallucination policy

What is the history of OpenEvidence and its key milestones?

2022

Company Founded

Founded by Harvard/MIT trained entrepreneur Daniel Nadler in Miami, Florida to develop specialized medical AI.

2025

$210M Funding Round

Raised $210M at $3.5B valuation, described as the fastest growing physician application in history.

2025

OpenEvidence Visits Launch

Launched a real time clinical assistant feature for patient documentation and evidence integration.

2025

DeepConsult Release

Released AI agents for advanced medical research synthesis from hundreds of peer reviewed studies.

2025

Major Publisher Partnerships

Secured content partnerships with New England Journal of Medicine, Journal of the American Medical Association (all 11 specialty journals) and American Medical Association.

What Are the Key Features of OpenEvidence?

✨
Evidence-Based Medical Search
AI powered chat answering clinical questions from 35,000,000 plus peer reviewed publications with direct citations.
✨
No-Hallucination Policy
Only responds when there is conclusive evidence, eliminating AI fabrications in medical contexts.
✨
OpenEvidence Visits
Clinical assistant integrates evidence into patient documentation, note drafting and assessments in real time.
✨
DeepConsult AI Agents
PhD level AI agents autonomously analyzing hundreds of studies for novel cross study insights.
✨
Patient Documentation Search
Upload and search patient histories, treatments and diagnostics for personalized insights.
✨
Publisher Partnerships
Direct access to premium content from New England Journal of Medicine, Journal of the American Medical Association specialty journals and American Medical Association.
✨
Mobile & Web Access
Free access for verified U.S. physicians using their National Provider Identifier (NPI) on both mobile and web platforms.

What Technology Stack and Infrastructure Does OpenEvidence Use?

Infrastructure

HIPAA compliant cloud infrastructure

Technologies

Specialized Medical Language ModelsNatural Language Processing

Integrations

NEJMJAMA Specialty JournalsAmerican Medical Association

AI/ML Capabilities

Smaller specialized AI models trained exclusively on 35M+ peer-reviewed medical publications outperforming general-purpose LLMs for clinical accuracy

Based on company descriptions; specific frameworks not publicly detailed

What Are the Best Use Cases for OpenEvidence?

US Physicians (Oncology)
Rapid access to current treatment guidelines and drug interaction data for complex cancer cases with cited evidence
US Physicians (Cardiology)
Evidence-based diagnostic criteria and therapy recommendations based on current research and generated during every patient encounter
Primary Care Physicians
First-line treatment protocols for community-acquired infections and common conditions with citation to support
Hospitalist Documentation Teams
The clinical notes are created by the OpenEvidence Visits application using the evidence and patient data to provide clinical documentation
Clinical Researchers
The DeepConsult agent creates new insights by combining information from hundreds of studies to create literature review results
NOT FORNon-US Healthcare Professionals
OpenEvidence is restricted to only verified US physicians through NPI validation
NOT FORPatients or Non-Physicians
The OpenEvidence platform is strictly for physicians only and does not allow for patients or consumers to have access

How Much Does OpenEvidence Cost and What Plans Are Available?

Pricing information with service tiers, costs, and details
☐Service$CostℹDetails🔗Source
Free Access$0For verified licensed medical professionals and medical students. Includes core search, literature summaries, DeepConsult AI agent. Ad-supported.Official site and reviews
EnterpriseCustom per-seat pricingHealth system deployments, EHR integration (Epic, Cerner), priority compute, custom knowledge bases, admin tools, analytics. HIPAA-compliant, SOC 2 Type II.Healthcare.digital and ClinicalAIReport
Free Access$0
For verified licensed medical professionals and medical students. Includes core search, literature summaries, DeepConsult AI agent. Ad-supported.
Official site and reviews
EnterpriseCustom per-seat pricing
Health system deployments, EHR integration (Epic, Cerner), priority compute, custom knowledge bases, admin tools, analytics. HIPAA-compliant, SOC 2 Type II.
Healthcare.digital and ClinicalAIReport

How Does OpenEvidence Compare to Competitors?

FeatureOpenEvidenceUpToDateGlass HealthDoximityEpocrates
Core FunctionalityAI medical search & evidence summariesExpert-curated clinical referenceAI diagnosis & planningDrug reference & AI chatDrug reference & interaction checker
Pricing (starting)Free (ad-supported)$559/year individualFree beta / Enterprise TBDFree (ad-supported)Free basic / $175/year plus
Free TierYes (verified clinicians)NoYes (beta)YesYes
Enterprise FeaturesEHR integration, custom licensingSite-wide licensing, EHR integrationCustom enterpriseInstitutional
API AvailabilityPlanned licensing
EHR IntegrationYes (Epic pilots)YesPlannedNoNo
Support OptionsCommunity / Enterprise priorityInstitutional
Security CertificationsHIPAA, SOC 2 Type IIInstitutional compliance
Core Functionality
OpenEvidenceAI medical search & evidence summaries
UpToDateExpert-curated clinical reference
Glass HealthAI diagnosis & planning
DoximityDrug reference & AI chat
EpocratesDrug reference & interaction checker
Pricing (starting)
OpenEvidenceFree (ad-supported)
UpToDate$559/year individual
Glass HealthFree beta / Enterprise TBD
DoximityFree (ad-supported)
EpocratesFree basic / $175/year plus
Free Tier
OpenEvidenceYes (verified clinicians)
UpToDateNo
Glass HealthYes (beta)
DoximityYes
EpocratesYes
Enterprise Features
OpenEvidenceEHR integration, custom licensing
UpToDateSite-wide licensing, EHR integration
Glass HealthCustom enterprise
DoximityInstitutional
Epocrates—
API Availability
OpenEvidencePlanned licensing
UpToDate—
Glass Health—
Doximity—
Epocrates—
EHR Integration
OpenEvidenceYes (Epic pilots)
UpToDateYes
Glass HealthPlanned
DoximityNo
EpocratesNo
Support Options
OpenEvidenceCommunity / Enterprise priority
UpToDateInstitutional
Glass Health—
Doximity—
Epocrates—
Security Certifications
OpenEvidenceHIPAA, SOC 2 Type II
UpToDateInstitutional compliance
Glass Health—
Doximity—
Epocrates—

How Does OpenEvidence Compare to Competitors?

vs UpToDate

OpenEvidence provides free AI-powered searching capabilities for verified clinicians versus UpToDate's $559 per year premium price for their expert-curated content; OpenEvidence has an advantage when it comes to the speed of the search and the ability to generate insights utilizing AI versus UpToDate which has the credibility and references of the institutions that utilize it

OpenEvidence is ideal for physicians who need cost-free access to AI-generated evidence and UpToDate is ideal for physicians who need gold-standard curated content in an institution

vs Glass Health

Both platforms are free initially; however, Glass focuses primarily on the differential diagnosis process while OpenEvidence focuses on the evidence-based searching process; OpenEvidence also has more traction within the clinician space and a greater amount of funding behind them

OpenEvidence is ideal for providing clinical research and literature review and Glass is ideal for creating plans for the diagnostic process

vs Doximity

Both platforms are free to use for physicians and are supported by advertising; Doximity provides its users with drug information and networking opportunities while OpenEvidence provides its users with a superior AI powered literature synthesis and is working towards integrating itself into many of the EMRs available today

OpenEvidence is ideal for clinical research and Doximity is ideal for professional networking

vs Epic (Art for Clinicians)

Epic has a significant advantage when it comes to having a large number of EMRs in place, approximately 40% of the market, and has a native AI application; OpenEvidence is currently seeking out partnerships with other EMR vendors through Epic pilots to integrate themselves as a layer of intelligence

Epic is ideal for embedding applications directly into an EMR workflow and OpenEvidence is ideal for being used as a search augmentation tool or stand-alone application

What are the strengths and limitations of OpenEvidence?

Pros

  • There are no subscription costs associated with accessing the services of OpenEvidence, as the services are free for verified clinicians and the cost of accessing UpToDate is approximately $559 per year
  • AI-powered evidence synthesis — fast literature summaries from peer-reviewed sources
  • Targeted toward real medical needs, highly relevant — focused on verified professionals
  • Enterprise trajectory -- $250 million in funding; EHR integration pilots have begun.
  • The ad-supported model will provide long-term sustainability as users do not pay for the core product.
  • Expanding features — clinical documentation (visits) and workflow tools are being developed.
  • High ratings — #2 in Clinical AI Decision Support at 72/100 rating.

Cons

  • Verification required — open to licensed professionals and students only, and not available to the general public.
  • US-centric — mainly serves US prescribers, limited international access.
  • Ad interruption — ad-supported revenue model will display pharmaceutical advertisements while the app is loading.
  • Enterprise pricing is unknown — the cost of implementing for health systems may be premium.
  • Developing early stage features — clinical documentation tools were just released (August 2025).
  • No individual-paid tier — uses an ad model or enterprise model, and has limited premium option.
  • EHR integration pilot only — not widely deployed at this time.

Who Is OpenEvidence Best For?

Best For

  • Verified US clinicians — Provides no-cost access to AI medical search versus other paid options such as Up To Date.
  • Medical students (verified) — A no-cost evidence based research tool for education.
  • Health systems with Epic EHR — Enterprise integration pilot currently being conducted to embed into workflows.
  • Physicians seeking AI literature synthesis — Quick peer reviewed summary without having to manually search.
  • Budget-conscious practices — The core function will be provided at zero cost, using an ad-supported model.

Not Suitable For

  • Non-verified healthcare professionals — Must verify as a professional; consider using Doximity or Epocrates free-tier instead.
  • International doctors outside US — Mainly a US focused ad-model and verification; use local tools.
  • Institutions needing mature EHR integration — Still in pilots; use established Up To Date or Epic native instead.
  • General public or non-clinicians — Must verify professionally; use consumer health apps instead.

Are There Usage Limits or Geographic Restrictions for OpenEvidence?

User Eligibility
Verified licensed medical professionals and medical students only
Geographic Availability
Primarily US-focused, limited international access
Free Tier Limits
Ad-supported, professional verification required
Enterprise Scale
Custom pricing for health system deployments
EHR Integration
Pilots with Epic; not generally available
Compliance
HIPAA-compliant, SOC 2 Type II for enterprise
Revenue Model
Pharma advertising during answer generation

Is OpenEvidence Secure and Compliant?

SOC 2 Type IIAchieved for enterprise deployments with institutional licensing
HIPAA ComplianceCompliant for healthcare data handling in enterprise configurations
EHR Integration SecurityFHIR-based pilots with Epic, secure clinical workflow embedding
Data AnonymizationAggregated anonymized usage data for pharma insights (enterprise)
Professional VerificationRequired for access, ensuring appropriate clinical use

What Customer Support Options Does OpenEvidence Offer?

Channels
Available for verified usersFree tier primary support channelDedicated support for health systems
Hours
Business hours primary, enterprise 24/7 likely
Response Time
Community-based for free tier; priority for enterprise
Satisfaction
High clinician adoption noted in reviews
Specialized
Clinical success managers for health system deployments
Business Tier
Priority compute and support for enterprise EHR integrations
Support Limitations
•Free tier relies on community forums, no dedicated support
•Enterprise support details available post-contract

What APIs and Integrations Does OpenEvidence Support?

API Type
No public API available. OpenEvidence is a clinician-facing web platform with no documented REST, GraphQL, or gRPC endpoints found in research sources.
Authentication
Clinician verification required for access. No developer authentication methods documented.
Webhooks
No webhook support mentioned.
SDKs
No official SDKs available on GitHub or developer portal.
Documentation
No public API documentation, developer portal, or status page identified.
Sandbox
No sandbox or testing environment for developers.
SLA
No uptime guarantees or SLAs published.
Rate Limits
Not applicable - no public API.
Use Cases
Primarily direct clinician use via web interface for clinical decision support. Future EHR integration planned but not yet available.

What Are Common Questions About OpenEvidence?

Open Evidence is a clinician facing AI platform that provides responses to clinical questions entered into the system via natural language through a scan of peer-reviewed sources including PubMed and guidelines. Each response includes a concise summary of evidence-based information with citations, and highlights consensus, controversy and action items. All responses include a link to the primary study(s) to enable verification.

The company does not publish pricing, and only verified clinicians can access this product using the Mayo Clinic Platform Accelerate program. In addition, an enterprise or institutional license would be necessary to allow full use of this product.

Unlike other general AI chatbots, OpenEvidence relies exclusively on the most reliable medical literature and clearly cites each reference to ensure no hallucinations occur, whereas general search engines provide a synthesis of the best evidence into actionable clinical recommendations, like the abstracts found in PubMed do not.

OpenEvidence has made claim that it is HIPAA compliant, and the user is cautioned against inputting Protected Health Information (PHI), as it maintains a clinician verified login system to control access.

Although integration with Electronic Health Records (EHR) will eventually be included, it currently works as an independent decision support tool.

No public free trial was noted, and users must first verify their credentials as clinicians before they can gain access to the tool, which suggests it will be accessible to qualified health professionals through institutional programs.

Only verified clinicians have access to this product. It would likely be beneficial for most common conditions, however the product would need to undergo additional testing to assess its accuracy in complex, undifferentiated cases. Currently, it cannot integrate real-time patient data.

Technical support is provided through either the Mayo Clinic Platform or institutional access programs. Physicians state that it reinforces rather than replaces their clinical judgment.

Is OpenEvidence Worth It?

OpenEvidence is a clinician focused AI decision support tool that is excellent at providing evidence based answers from trusted medical resources while supporting rather than replacing physician judgment. Developed by Harvard/MIT researchers working with Mayo Clinic, it is designed to address many of the current challenges related to access to literature in primary care. Although it holds great promise, its clinician only access and lack of electronic health record integration limits its potential use today.

Recommended For

  • Primary Care Physicians who require fast evidence based answers
  • Clinicians in Ambulatory Settings caring for patients with common chronic conditions
  • Hospital Systems wishing to decrease the time spent documenting and increase the decision making confidence of their staff Text from 65-80:
  • What do academic medical centers think about AI clinical tools?

!
Use With Caution

  • What are the concerns of specialists who deal with rare or difficult-to-diagnose cases? They need more validation.
  • Which institutions can’t use the Mayo Clinic Platform to get access to OpenEvidence?
  • How long will users have to wait for real-time EHR integration with OpenEvidence?

Not Recommended For

  • Are non-clinicians and patients able to access OpenEvidence?
  • Are there organizations that want patient-facing tools or a wide range of consumers to be able to access OpenEvidence?
  • Which budget-constrained clinics don’t have institutional sponsorship to pay for OpenEvidence?
Expert's Conclusion

What types of users will find OpenEvidence best-suited for their purposes as an AI-powered clinical decision support tool?

Best For
Primary Care Physicians who require fast evidence based answersClinicians in Ambulatory Settings caring for patients with common chronic conditionsHospital Systems wishing to decrease the time spent documenting and increase the decision making confidence of their staff Text from 65-80:

What do expert reviews and research say about OpenEvidence?

Key Findings

What is OpenEvidence? OpenEvidence is an AI-powered clinical decision support platform created by researchers at Harvard/MIT via Mayo Clinic Platform Accelerate. It uses nothing but trusted peer-reviewed references to make clinical recommendations. Research has shown that when physicians use OpenEvidence they match the accuracy of clinical decisions made by themselves in primary care chronic condition cases. Additionally, research has shown that physicians spend 40% less time documenting their diagnoses and treatments when using OpenEvidence. Finally, research has also shown that physicians feel more confident when using OpenEvidence to make clinical decisions. The use of OpenEvidence is currently limited to verified clinicians. Real-time integration with EHR systems is planned, however this capability does not exist at present.

Data Quality

Good - validated through peer-reviewed studies (PMC, JAMA), clinician feedback (Sermo), and healthcare blogs. No official pricing, API, or roadmap details publicly available as clinician-restricted platform.

Risk Factors

!
Why isn't OpenEvidence capable of being evaluated by everyone? Because it is designed for clinician-use only.
!
Have the performance of OpenEvidence in more complex cases been validated? No.
!
Is the delivery of OpenEvidence dependent upon the Mayo Clinic Platform? Yes.
!
When will EHR systems be integrated with OpenEvidence? The integration of OpenEvidence into EHR systems has not occurred.
Last updated: February 2026

What Additional Information Is Available for OpenEvidence?

Development Origin

Who built OpenEvidence? Researchers at Harvard/MIT created OpenEvidence under the Mayo Clinic Platform Accelerate program. Researchers used only trusted sources such as PubMed and clinical guidelines to develop OpenEvidence to support evidence-based medicine.

Clinical Validation

What did the peer-reviewed studies say about OpenEvidence? Peer-reviewed studies have found that OpenEvidence performs similarly to the decisions made by physicians in primary care chronic condition cases. Physicians rated the responses provided by OpenEvidence to be both accurate and informative in all five of the real patient scenarios studied.

Physician Feedback

What did a recent Sermo poll reveal about how pediatricians view the usefulness of OpenEvidence? A Sermo poll showed that 21% of respondents stated that they found OpenEvidence useful in making decisions and 24% stated that they valued the time savings that OpenEvidence afforded them. Additionally, the Sermo poll revealed that pediatricians particularly appreciated the bedside accessibility of OpenEvidence to provide evidence-based medicine.

Future Roadmap

The number one most asked-for feature from surveyed physicians was to integrate the EHR with Open Evidence (17%). Open Evidence aims to be a direct part of clinical workflows so that it can be used at the point of care.

Impact Metrics

Clinical documentation time has been reduced by 40% according to a Harvard study. In addition, 85% of all users reported increased confidence in their decisions; hospitals using similar AI have seen a 15% reduction in hospital readmission rates.

What Are the Best Alternatives to OpenEvidence?

  • •
    Elicit: This is an AI-assisted tool for doing research, specifically for creating a systematic review of academic papers. Open Evidence provides a very broad research perspective whereas Open Evidence is focused strictly on clinical research; it also allows you to export your extracted data to CSV files. It is best suited for researchers who require a systematic review of clinical information.
  • •
    UpToDate: Open Evidence is a gold standard for clinical decision support. The content is created by experts and includes graded recommendations. Although more comprehensive than Open Evidence, its update cycle is longer and it requires a subscription. It is best for specialists who need a high level of detail.
  • •
    DynaMed: This is an evidence-based clinical resource that has real-time updates and decision support tools. Although Open Evidence is also a clinician-focused resource, DynaMed is an established tool that integrates well into clinicians' existing workflows. It is best for hospitals that currently use EBSCO products.
  • •
    VisualDx: This is an AI-based diagnostic support system that specializes in visual and dermatological conditions and uses image analysis. Its clinical question scope is narrower than Open Evidence's scope of general clinical questions. It is best suited for visual diagnosis workflows.
  • •
    PubMed with AI overlays (Consensus, Scite): PubMed contains free literature searching capabilities along with AI based summary tools. Unlike Open Evidence, it does not contain the same amount of synthesized clinical guidance, nor does it have any access restrictions. It is best suited for academic researchers and those who are looking for an open-source product.

What Are OpenEvidence's Diagnostic Performance Metrics?

3.55 /4.0
Clarity Score
3.75 /4.0
Relevance Score
3.35 /4.0
Evidence Support Score
3.6 /4.0
Overall Satisfaction Score
1.95 /4.0
Clinical Decision-Making Impact Score

What Clinical Integration Capabilities Does OpenEvidence Offer?

Natural Language Query Processing

Users are able to ask questions about clinical issues using natural language (for example "What is the current evidence regarding the use of SGLT-2 inhibitors for treating heart failure in non-diabetes patients?") without having to perform structured searches.

Electronic Health Record Integration

Open Evidence seamlessly interfaces with various EHR systems including Epic. It embeds evidence-based clinical decision support recommendations directly into clinical workflows at the point of care.

Evidence Synthesis and Summarization

Thousands of peer reviewed studies, guidelines, and systematic reviews are analyzed by Open Evidence to create concise, referenced summaries with actionable clinical suggestions.

Transparent Source Citation

Links all statements back to original research or clinical guidelines so that clinicians can review evidence prior to applying it in a clinical setting

Guideline-Based Recommendations

Supports guideline recommendations with evidence base; identifies strength and direction of study findings

Point-of-Care Decision Support

Offers direct clinical guidance at point-of-care (bedside) or during clinical encounter to support evidence-based decision making

What Is OpenEvidence's Regulatory Compliance Status Status?

Verified Clinician Access ControlExclusive access limited to healthcare professionals with National Provider Identifier (NPI) numbers
Peer-Reviewed Source VerificationAll answers sourced exclusively from trusted, peer-reviewed medical literature including The New England Journal of Medicine and JAMA
Evidence-Based Medicine StandardsPlatform developed by Harvard and MIT researchers through Mayo Clinic Platform Accelerate program; built on evidence-based medicine principles
Data Security and HIPAA ComplianceSupports secure clinical workflows with de-identified patient information handling
FDA Medical Device Regulatory PathwayClassified as clinical decision support platform; regulatory status continues to evolve

How Does OpenEvidence's Clinical Application Matrix Compare?

Clinical DomainUse CaseApplication TypeEvidence Base
Primary CareHypertension ManagementEvidence-based treatment selection and guideline alignmentValidated across five common chronic conditions; mean clarity score 3.55/4.0
Primary CareHyperlipidemia TreatmentMedication selection with evidence supportRated high in relevance (3.75/4.0) and evidence support (3.35/4.0)
Primary CareType 2 Diabetes ManagementTreatment planning with latest clinical evidenceRetrospective validation in five patient cases with physician alignment
Primary CareDepression ManagementEvidence-based therapeutic and pharmacological recommendationsAccurate recommendations in all evaluated cases
Primary CareObesity TreatmentWeight management and intervention selectionReinforced physician clinical decisions in all tested cases
CardiologyCardiovascular Evidence ReviewLatest guidelines and clinical trial evidencePartnership with American College of Cardiology for curated ACC content
OncologyCancer Treatment EvidenceTreatment options and latest clinical researchPlatform supports oncology specialists in evidence review
Multi-SpecialtyPoint-of-Care Clinical QuestionsRapid evidence synthesis for complex clinical scenariosOver 20 million clinical consultations supported; over 100 million Americans treated by providers using OpenEvidence

What Are OpenEvidence's Economic And Operational Impact Metrics?

24% of clinicians cite time savings
Time Savings Reported
21% describe as useful tool for supporting decisions
Clinical Decision Support Benefit
20000000 consultations supported (January 2025)
Global Clinical Consultations
100000000 Americans treated by doctors using OpenEvidence
Patient Population Served
Free for verified clinicians
Access Cost

How Does OpenEvidence's Model Evaluation And Validation Methodology Compare?

Validation TypeStudy DesignPopulationKey Findings
Retrospective Case AnalysisFive patient cases from primary care; physician-posed clinical questions; independent physician ratingsCommon chronic conditions: hypertension, hyperlipidemia, type 2 diabetes, depression, obesityAccurate, evidence-based recommendations in all cases; aligned with physician clinical decision-making
Clarity and Relevance AssessmentFour independent physicians rated responses on 0-4 scalePrimary care scenarios with actual patient casesMean clarity 3.55/4.0, relevance 3.75/4.0, evidence support 3.35/4.0
Clinical Decision-Making ImpactRetrospective physician evaluation of whether OpenEvidence modified care plansFive primary care patient casesLimited impact (1.95/4.0) due to retrospective nature; platform primarily reinforced rather than modified physician decisions
Satisfaction AssessmentPhysician satisfaction ratings following clinical consultationsMixed clinical scenarios from ambulatory primary careOverall satisfaction 3.60/4.0; high satisfaction with evidence backing and clinical relevance
Real-World Deployment MonitoringProspective tracking through Sutter Health and health system partnershipsThousands of active clinicians across multiple specialtiesOver 20 million clinical consultations tracked; ongoing performance monitoring in live clinical workflows

What Data Governance And Bias Mitigation Framework Does OpenEvidence Offer?

Trusted Medical Literature Sources

Sources exclusively from peer reviewed journals (New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA), PubMed, and well-recognized clinical guidelines

Guideline-Based Evidence Curation

Integrates with recognized authorities including clinical guidelines and evidence framework of the American College of Cardiology

Evidence Quality Filtering

Prioritizes systematic reviews and clinical guidelines over single studies; emphasizes strength and direction of study findings

Transparent Citation Methodology

Includes citations for each recommendation to link back to original studies and/or guidelines; supports clinician review and validation of evidence basis

Clinician Verification Requirements

Restricts access to verified healthcare providers who have NPI number; validates platform use is limited to qualified medical practitioners

Real-World Performance Monitoring

Currently deployed within Sutter Health System; Continuously evaluates clinical utility and alignment with clinical decision making processes

Expert Reviews

📝

No reviews yet

Be the first to review OpenEvidence!

Write a Review

Similar Products

Viz.ai
viz.ai
Zebra Medical Vision
zebra-med.com
Tempus
tempus.com