HealthIT.com
Menu

Every claim we hold, and how far we can stand behind it.

142 claims across 39 products. 28% are confirmed against the source text by the evidence gate; 39% come from a class with no vendor interest. Everything below is browsable, filterable, and available as JSON.

Evidence classClaimsConfirmedWhat it can support
Peer-reviewed study195Reviewed before publication; assess study quality, funding, conflicts, and relevance to your setting.
Regulatory filing40A statement made to a regulator, where being wrong has consequences.
Independent report329Reporting outside a vendor publication; assess underlying data, sponsorship, and conflicts separately.
Customer case43A real deployment, but selected and framed by someone with an interest.
Press release6322The vendor's own announcement. Useful for dates and facts, not for outcomes.
Vendor page201Marketing copy. Establishes what is claimed, never that it is true.

Showing 5 of 5 matching claims (142 in the full corpus) · 0% of this selection is confirmed · clear filters

  1. Peer-reviewed Nature Health study (SAFEMOM) of Ada integrated into South Africa's government-run MomConnect WhatsApp maternal health platform found safe health-seeking behavior rose nearly a third and appropriate care-seeking rose more than 40%; an independent physician panel rated Ada's recommendations safe in 98% of cases

    Provenance
    Claim ID
    clm_e424d6e33e196547ba29
    Version
    1
    Workflow
    Clinical Evidence & Decision Support
    Dimension
    evidence strength
    Retrieved
    2026-08-27
    Reviewer
    healthit-gate-v1
    Source URL
    https://doi.org/10.1038/s44360-026-00125-x
  2. Mayo Clinic study in J Prim Care Community Health (2025 Apr 16;16:21501319251332215, doi 10.1177/21501319251332215) found OpenEvidence 'provided accurate, evidence-based recommendations in all cases, aligning with physician plans' across five common chronic conditions, with mean scores of clarity 3.55±0.60, relevance 3.75±0.44, support 3.35±0.49, and satisfaction 3.60±0.60.

    OpenEvidencePeer-reviewed studyUnverifiedOpen source ↗
    Provenance
    Claim ID
    clm_565ce01a474e2b680115
    Version
    1
    Workflow
    Clinical Evidence & Decision Support
    Dimension
    evidence strength
    Retrieved
    2026-08-27
    Reviewer
    healthit-gate-v1
    Source URL
    https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12033599/
  3. Journal of Investigative Dermatology study (Dulmage et al., 2021;141:1230-1235, doi 10.1016/j.jid.2020.08.027) of VisualDx's point-of-care AI system found 'The AI system achieved an accuracy of 68% in determining the single most likely morphology from the test image bank', while primary care physicians scored 36% without aids and 68% with a visual guide (P < 0.001); on 222 images across Fitzpatrick skin types the AI achieved 70% accuracy in Fitzpatrick I-III and 68% in Fitzpatrick IV-VI (P = 0.79).

    VisualDxPeer-reviewed studyUnverifiedOpen source ↗
    Provenance
    Claim ID
    clm_19dcf624d235238fa2b7
    Version
    1
    Workflow
    Clinical Evidence & Decision Support
    Dimension
    evidence strength
    Retrieved
    2026-08-27
    Reviewer
    healthit-gate-v1
    Source URL
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jid.2020.08.027
  4. Independent BMJ Open peer-reviewed vignette study (Gilbert et al., 2020) compared digital symptom assessment apps, including Ada, against GPs for suggesting conditions and urgency advice

    Provenance
    Claim ID
    clm_796e5c36fb879e0a483b
    Version
    1
    Workflow
    Clinical Evidence & Decision Support
    Dimension
    evidence strength
    Retrieved
    2026-08-27
    Reviewer
    healthit-gate-v1
    Source URL
    https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7745718/
  5. Cluster-randomized controlled trial in J Med Libr Assoc (2019 Apr 1;107(2):151-162, doi 10.5195/jmla.2019.581) evaluated VisualDx as a clinical evidence technology for skin problems in primary care: 'Thirty-two PCPs and 433 patients participated', and time from index visit to skin problem resolution was similar in both groups (hazard ratio=0.92; 95% CI 0.70, 1.21; p=0.54).

    VisualDxPeer-reviewed studyUnverifiedOpen source ↗
    Provenance
    Claim ID
    clm_fa1a96f540b206b3d969
    Version
    1
    Workflow
    Clinical Evidence & Decision Support
    Dimension
    evidence strength
    Retrieved
    2026-08-27
    Reviewer
    healthit-gate-v1
    Source URL
    https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6466492/
Know a source we are missing?

Checking feedback availability…

Open to everyone — no account needed. This is a non-PHI service: never include patient identifiers.

We cannot action an evidence claim without something to check.

Your message is privately delivered to the editorial team. How we handle your information.