What's the most helpful way you've used OpenEvidence in your clinical practice so far?

Highlights

• One clinician uses OpenEvidence to answer patient questions that fall outside of their primary field of expertise.
• OpenEvidence can be used to investigate rare or unfamiliar side effects of common treatments, such as paclitaxel-induced dizziness.
• The platform is helpful for quickly confirming when no data exists on a particular clinical question.

Expert Insights

Practical Applications of AI-Powered Evidence Synthesis in Clinical Practice

As clinicians navigate increasingly complex patient inquiries and atypical presentations, the need for rapid, evidence-based support at the point of care is paramount. Two specialists in distinct fields, endocrinology and oncology, recently shared their experiences using the evidence-synthesis platform OpenEvidence. Their perspectives highlight two valuable, albeit different, applications of the tool: efficiently addressing patient questions outside one's core expertise and investigating rare adverse events within one's specialty.

Answering Patient Inquiries Beyond a Specialist's Domain

For specialists, patient questions can often venture into tangential or unrelated medical fields. Dr. Sarah Kim, an endocrinologist specializing in diabetes, notes that she does not use OpenEvidence frequently but finds it valuable "in a pinch" for such scenarios. She recalls a patient asking about a potential link between GLP-1 agonists and endometriosis—a query outside her direct area of expertise.

I will use it in a pinch if a patient asks me a question that is unrelated to my field of expertise. Dr. Sarah Kim

Dr. Kim used the platform to perform a quick check for any existing data on the topic. The search revealed no significant evidence to suggest a relationship, either positive or negative. This ability to rapidly confirm an absence of data proved clinically useful, allowing her to provide the patient with a clear, evidence-informed answer without an extensive literature search. This use case demonstrates the tool's utility in efficiently managing inquiries at the periphery of a clinician's specialty.

Investigating Rare or Atypical Drug Side Effects

In contrast, Dr. Nerea Lopetegui-Lia, a breast oncologist, utilized OpenEvidence to solve a pressing clinical puzzle within her own field. She was consulted about one of her patients receiving paclitaxel chemotherapy who developed dizziness and lightheadedness that was refractory to IV fluids. Dr. Lopetegui-Lia notes that this was a rare side effect that neither she nor her senior partners had previously encountered.

It's a rare side effect that I, or none of my senior partners have seen, so I looked it up on OpenEvidence. Dr. Nerea Lopetegui-Lia

Turning to OpenEvidence, she investigated the neurologic toxicities of paclitaxel. The platform confirmed that while peripheral neuropathy is a very common side effect, the drug is also associated with less frequent central nervous system effects. This information provided a plausible, evidence-backed explanation for the patient’s unusual symptoms, augmenting the clinical team's experience-based knowledge and guiding their assessment. This case highlights the tool’s value in validating suspicions about rare adverse events that may not be part of a physician's routine clinical experience.

Contrasting Use Cases, Shared Clinical Value

The experiences of Dr. Kim and Dr. Lopetegui-Lia illustrate a spectrum of utility. For one, the tool serves as an occasional resource to quickly vet topics outside of her primary domain, effectively confirming what is not yet known in the literature. For the other, it acted as a critical resource to diagnose a rare but documented drug toxicity within her specialty. Together, their perspectives suggest that evidence-synthesis platforms can effectively support clinicians by providing rapid, targeted information for both common and uncommon questions that arise in the course of direct patient care.