OpenEvidence

In Offcall's new 2025 report surveying 1,000 doctors: 44% now use OpenEvidence daily. It's the clear #1 by a mile. The report sums it up perfectly: "Physicians are adopting AI on their own, often using personal subscriptions to the hottest AI tools, because their organizations can't move fast enough." Clinicians are voting with their keyboards. Powerful data from @grahamwalker and @OffCallDotCom

Cardiology moves fast. ACC/AHA Dyslipidemia Guidelines update, new data on SGLT2 inhibitors in HFpEF, shifting recommendations on anticoagulation management. The challenge is getting to the right source fast enough to use it. That’s what OpenEvidence was built for. Come test us.

Honored to officially join the @EvidenceOpen team as a Cardiology Advisor! 🫀 👩🏽‍⚕️ If you're at #ACC26 this weekend, come visit me at the booth 🙋🏽‍♀️ Grab the new prompting guide and let's test out your toughest clinical questions together at the demo. So excited to connect! 👇🏾

"I’ve been thinking about how frameworks for AI enablement in physician decision-making can vary so greatly between specialties. A best-in-class solution for PCPs will necessarily be different from one created for radiologists or another for oncologists." @SamyuktaMD

Not all docs like when patients google or use ChatGPT and other AI tools to ask them questions. But this ER doctor feels it's better to have empowered patients. 🎙️Ania Bilski, VP, Clinical AI, OpenEvidence

We see the poll results and, more importantly, we read every reply. Specialty differences matter, and we're building for them. We built OpenEvidence so the right evidence is one question away, whether it’s a common case or something you see once in a career. Still a lot of work to do. Keep the feedback coming.

A lot of buzz around AI (particularly LLMs). Are you actively using this in your clinical practice? #OncTiwtter #MedTwitter #HemeTwitter @BijoyTelivala @RenoHemonc @PTarantinoMD @NVijayvergiaMD @Papa_Heme @ErikaHamilton9 @CathyEngMD @hoperugo @Dr_RShatsky @NiuSanford @GIMedOnc

“Doctors shouldn’t finish a 12-hour day and then spend the evening making sure they get reimbursed accurately. Coding Intelligence reviews clinical notes and generates CPT codes, E&M recommendations, and diagnosis codes at the end of each visit.”

Cardiologists ask us how to get the best answer from OpenEvidence on the first try, so we built a prompt coaching guide with real cardiology cases. Come pick one up at ACC 26 this weekend. While you’re there, bring your own hard question and we’ll test it live.

@gbiondizoccai Thank you for running this, Dr. Biondi-Zoccai. OpenEvidence is free for verified physicians in Italy. If you or your colleagues have feedback on the experience, we’d welcome it.

Have you ever used the OpenEvidence app?

Medical billing is broken. We built Coding Intelligence™ to fix this. Automatically generate CPT codes, E/M levels with MDM rationale and ICD-10 diagnoses from your documentation and the latest clinical guidelines. Live now in Visits for verified U.S. clinicians.

Read full article fiercehealthcare.com/health-tech/op…

Today we're introducing Coding Intelligence™, allowing physicians to focus on their patients while OpenEvidence seamlessly automates the coding process for accurate and accelerated reimbursement. Modern medical billing is broken. There are tens of thousands of billing codes and endless ways to code the same visit. It is virtually impossible to navigate this complexity and get appropriately reimbursed without shifting focus away from patient care. We built Coding Intelligence™ to solve this.

Hey @EvidenceOpen the #DotFlows are absolutely lit! Created a personalized patient handout (no PHI) dotflow and it is very promising!! (.patienthandout )

@dr_nikhilshah Thank you, Dr. Shah. IgA nephropathy patient education is a perfect use case for Dotflows. Great to see it in action in Canada.

OpenEvidence started as the place clinicians go to find clinical evidence. Now they're becoming the place medical societies go to CREATE it - that's a whole new moat for winning the AI CDS market. My 5 thoughts... First, the gist of what OpenEvidence announced: → The American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foundation (AAO-HNSF) and OpenEvidence have partnered to keep clinical practice guidelines current using AI-augmented literature surveillance → OpenEvidence built a custom methodology with AAO-HNSF that systematically compares existing guideline recommendations against current medical literature. → The system flags specific recommendations for review when new evidence either supports revising the existing guidelines or reaffirms it. → AAO-HNSF has already applied this to several of its existing clinical practice guidelines. The goal is to make it easier and faster for societies to keep guidelines up-to-date. My 5 thoughts on this strategy and what it means for the AI CDS industry: 1/ OpenEvidence has strengthened its market position by going beyond simply licensing clinical content from medical societies and journals. By creating a way to add value to medical societies directly, and thus create some dependency for medical societies on OE, it incentivizes those societies to encourage their members to choose OE over other tools. 2/ This is awesome for clinical guideline maintenance. Many clinical practice guidelines become outdated because too many years can go by without a review or updates simply because doing a review is very time and labour intensive. It’s increasingly difficult because the pace of research outpaces our ability to incorporate them into guidelines. By reducing friction to making such updates, we will see guideline updates skyrocket. 3/ In the past, some clinicians may have minimized the value of guidelines because they could be quickly out of date. But if these tools can truly make guidelines more current, the clinician community will be even more willing to use them. This will lead to better patient care. 4/ This puts OE on a potential path to expansion beyond simply evidence search and curation and into opportunities of evidence generation itself. OE is starting by helping to update guidelines, but what if OE creates AI tools to suggest and draft not yet developed, brand new guidelines in the first place? That seems inevitable and the smart thing to do. 5/ This illustrates one of the powerful things about startups. OE has the freedom and courage to try new stuff like this very easily - how do the large incumbents move quickly enough to not just catch up but lead the way on product innovation? Unlike a big entrenched EHR, it’s hard to see how CDS products - even legacy ones - have much of a moat.

Cardiology moves fast. ACC/AHA Dyslipidemia Guidelines update, new data on SGLT2 inhibitors in HFpEF, shifting recommendations on anticoagulation management. The challenge is getting to the right source fast enough to use it. That’s what OpenEvidence was built for. Come test us.

We asked the OpenEvidence physician team what they'd want the Match Day class of 2026 to know. These are clinicians who practice medicine and build the tools that support it. Here's what they said.

Congratulations to every newly matched resident. From the OpenEvidence physician team to the Match Day class of 2026, here's what we wish someone had told us. #Match2026

@CanesDavid Dotflows. More coming.

Dot phrases sneakily come in to OE "Dot Flows"

Doctors don't need more health information tools. They need fewer, better ones they can actually trust. Dr. Ania Bilski, our VP of Clinical AI and an ER physician, brought that perspective to SXSW on the panel "Health Answers Everywhere: Who to Trust in the Age of AI." Full room. Real conversation about what responsible AI in medicine actually looks like.

Read our full announcement: bit.ly/OEguidelines

Clinical practice guidelines take years to update. The literature doesn’t pause in between. We worked with @AAOHNS to build a methodology that continuously monitors emerging evidence against existing guideline recommendations and flags where the science has moved. They’re the first medical society to pilot it. The goal: the recommendation you rely on today reflects the evidence available today.