Congress evidence reviews
Build a congress briefing from the findings across abstracts and presentations.
Build the briefingTurn a document set into evidence you can compare.
Extract answers across publications, abstracts, and diligence materials, with the supporting passages attached to each finding.
Compare study design alongside the reported results.
Choose the population, endpoint, comparator, and follow-up fields your review needs.
Inspect supporting quotes and evidence ratings to distinguish reported findings from interpretations and missing information.
Congress abstracts
Trial publications
Diligence materials
Apply your extraction questions to every document
- 01Who was studied?
Population, prior treatment, inclusion criteria
- 02What was measured?
Endpoint definition, follow-up, comparator
- 03What does the source establish?
Reported result, supporting passage, missing detail
Inspect the study differences behind each cell.
BOREASNEJM · 2023NOTUSNEJM · 2024MATINEENEJM · 2025
Scroll across to compare all columns →
| Publication | Treatment period | Exacerbation rate ratio vs placebo | Quality of life |
|---|---|---|---|
| BOREAS ↗Dupilumab | 52 weeks | 0.7095% CI 0.58–0.86 | Significant improvement |
| NOTUS ↗Dupilumab | 52 weeks | 0.6695% CI 0.54–0.82 | No significant difference |
| MATINEE ↗Mepolizumab | 52–104 weeks | 0.7995% CI 0.66–0.94 | No significant difference Source passage → |
Preserve the study differences. Each rate ratio compares treatment with its own placebo group. These are separate trials, not a head-to-head comparison.
Carry the extracted evidence into your next assessment.
Asset diligence
Give the Research Agent the gaps your document review uncovered for further investigation.
Investigate the gapsCompare drugs across sources
Use Smart Tables to investigate drugs or companies across multiple sources.
Explore Smart Tables