Public data + our data shows only ~1/2 of clinical questions can be answered by Up to Date (or references like them).
Those online compendia employ a small team of credible authors + have massive scale, so they focus on the mainstream questions.
Our custom solution is designed around the long tail of emerging or complex questions.
For example, if you want to know about dexamethasone 4mg for early stage COVID, Up to Date will have it. But if you want to know about dexamethasone 20 mg, you’re faced with doing this literature search on PubMed (which = 2 hours + 4 journals) .
We get this question a lot, and really appreciate you surfacing it here. We made this into a FAQ for anyone that prefers to visualize it: https://www.inpharmd.com/faq
Maybe this is how any startup takes on any large incumbent? IDK. We love your collective wisdom, we learn a ton from you all.
For anyone curious , we actually did this question:
https://www.inpharmd.com/is-there-any-data-to-support-higher...
And it comes down to liability as well. Basing your treatment decisions on UpToDate or NCCS guidelines or Cochrane Reviews is pretty defensible. But basing it on the findings of an AI start up? How is that being addressed?
But don’t get me wrong. I think there is a lot of value in physicians having easy access to pharmacists to discuss treatment options. Right now that doesn’t happen that easily.
The consequences of wording something wrongly are huge.
To be clear, we stop short of making recommendations. Our goal is to give the provider all the info she needs to make her own evidence informed decision.