Ask a question

YOUR CLINICAL EVIDENCE REFERENCE

Ask a clinical question.Verify the evidence behind any claim.

Juisci answers from the literature, and shows you the papers behind it.

Leave out anything that could identify a patient.

You are interacting with an AI system. It can make mistakes and never replaces your clinical judgement.

  • Free for verified healthcare professionals, always.
  • We store no patient data.
  • A fresh search every time
  • Every claim opens its source
  • Yours in ten languages

JUISCIGPT

A clinical question.
The answer, then the proof.

Every answer opens onto the exact passage in the source publication.

A fresh search, every time

Each question runs a new search across recent publications and medical guidelines, and the answer is built from what it finds. If the literature is thin, the answer says so.

Sourced claims

See which source supports each claim.

The passage, verbatim

The original sentence from the publication, in its context, with the page.

The publication

Journal, date, study type, population, declared limits. One click to the original.

The stated limit

Where the evidence stops, the answer says where it stops.

The second question

Context is kept. Narrow to a subgroup, exclude a population, contest a criterion. Each follow-up builds on the one before.

JuisciGPTWorkflow preview

In a patient over 75 with HFpEF, what clinical benefit is expected from empagliflozin?

Analyzing your question…
Understanding the question
Medical guidelinesRelevant medical association
Recent publications0 articles
HFpEF · Empagliflozin · Age ≥75
Cross-referencing the evidence
Screening by level of evidence
Synthesizing the evidence
Writing the answer

A fresh search, every time

Each question runs a new search across recent publications and medical guidelines, and the answer is built from what it finds. If the literature is thin, the answer says so.

JuisciGPTWorkflow preview

In a patient over 75 with HFpEF, what clinical benefit is expected from empagliflozin?

Analyzing your question…
Understanding the question
Medical guidelinesRelevant medical association
Recent publications0 articles
HFpEF · Empagliflozin · Age ≥75
Cross-referencing the evidence
Screening by level of evidence
Synthesizing the evidence
Writing the answer

Sourced claims

See which source supports each claim.

AnswerSources (3)Evidence (5)

In patients aged 75 years or older with HFpEF,

empagliflozin is expected to reduce the risk of the composite of cardiovascular death or heart-failure hospitalization, with a treatment effect similar to that observed in younger patients.

Source 1

Empagliflozin Improves Outcomes in Patients With Heart Failure and Preserved Ejection Fraction Irrespective of Age

Böhm et al. · 2022

The passage, verbatim

The original sentence from the publication, in its context, with the page.

Source 1Cited passage

Empagliflozin and preserved ejection fraction

Böhm et al. · 2022 · Results

Empagliflozin reduced primary outcomes (P trend = 0.33), first HFH (P trend = 0.22), and first and recurrent HFH (P trend = 0.11) across all age groups with an effect being similar at ≥75 years (P interaction = 0.22) or >80 years (P interaction = 0.51).
The exact words behind the claim.

The publication

Journal, date, study type, population, declared limits. One click to the original.

Source 12022

Empagliflozin Improves Outcomes in Patients With Heart Failure and Preserved Ejection Fraction Irrespective of Age

Michael Böhm et al.

Journal
Journal of the American College of Cardiology
Study
EMPEROR-Preserved · Age subgroup analysis
Population
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2022.04.040

The stated limit

Where the evidence stops, the answer says where it stops.

AnswerSources (2)

Patients ≥75 years also experienced improvement in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire scores and attenuation of renal-function decline.

Caution

The age-specific evidence comes from a prespecified subgroup analysis rather than a trial randomized specifically in very old adults, so frailty, volume status, renal function, and hypotension risk still require individual assessment. 1

The second question

Context is kept. Narrow to a subgroup, exclude a population, contest a criterion. Each follow-up builds on the one before.

JuisciGPTSame conversation

In a patient over 75 with HFpEF, what clinical benefit is expected from empagliflozin?

And in patients over 80?

↳ Context kept

For patients over 80 with HFpEF, the evidence on empagliflozin…

ONE STANDARD, THREE WAYS IN

Three ways to access curated and reliable literature.

JuisciGPT home screen with Search, Understand, Decide and Write, and a clinical case typed into the question field.

JuisciGPT

A clinical question, answered from the primary literature, traceable claim by claim.

Bringing traceable evidence into clinical practice, with hospitals and scientific societies.

Institutions and scientific societies we work with.

THE ANSWER, AND WHAT IT IS MADE OF

An answer you can check, claim by claim.

  • Looks it up, every time

    Every question runs a fresh search across recent publications and medical guidelines.

  • Trace every answer to its sources

    Each answer is built from the publications it cites. Open them and judge for yourself. If Juisci finds nothing, it says so.

  • Ask it the way you'd ask a colleague

    Dictate or type a full clinical description: a finding you're unsure about, a therapeutic controversy, a guideline question. Juisci analyses it and tells you what the literature says.

WHAT LETS YOU JUDGE

Two signals, kept apart.

The journal is graded A+ to E against others in its specialty. The study's primary outcome is run through the standard risk-of-bias checklist for that design: trial, cohort, review. Open either to see how it was scored.

Population, follow-up, declared limitations and conflicts of interest are shown before you read, not summarised.

Journal

Example Journal of Surgery

Impact factor

12.4

  1. A+
  2. A
  3. B
  4. C
  5. D
  6. E
Rank
Q1A · Top 10% in Surgery
Indexed in
Medline · DOAJ

Study

Study design

Cohort study

Risk of bias

High

Reading by Juisci based on ROBINS-I

  1. D1Bias due to confoundingHigh risk
  2. D2Bias in selection of participants into the studyLow risk
  3. D3Bias in classification of interventionsLow risk
  4. D4Bias due to deviations from intended interventionsLow risk
  5. D5Bias due to missing dataLow risk
  6. D6Bias in measurement of outcomesLow risk
  7. D7Bias in selection of the reported resultLow risk

OverallHigh

THE MOMENT

When a question comes up in practice.

01 / 04

Preparing rounds or a staff meeting

Walk into the staff meeting with the current guideline and the evidence behind it.

02 / 04

The question left open after rounds

The question you still have after rounds, settled before it slips away.

03 / 04

When a new guideline or study comes out

Is it my field, is it new, is it solid, does it change my practice: the answer, with the passages to check.

04 / 04

Weekly self-study time

Your rotation reading, your thesis, your talks, with references you can check one by one.

ASKED ON JUISCI

The questions clinicians brought this week.

Real questions, answered against the literature. Open one and you see exactly what you would see inside the product.

What is the role of intrathecal morphine in minimally invasive thoracic surgery?

Thoracic surgery · Physician

See the answer

Diagnostic and therapeutic management of multiple primary lung cancers: what do the last three years of data show?

Oncology · Physician

See the answer

Is there clinical evidence or recent meta-analyses on non-pharmacological interventions (CBT, meditation, social support) for reducing markers of maternal stress, and on their effects on fetal development?

Clinical psychology · Physician

See the answer

Which ultrasound (IOTA, O-RADS) or biological criteria (ADNEX, tumour markers) are most specific for distinguishing a functional ovarian cyst from a borderline or malignant ovarian tumour in a young woman, according to recent ESGO or ACOG guidance?

Gynaecology · Physician

See the answer

WHAT IT WILL NOT DO

What Juisci does when it can't answer.

What if the evidence cannot settle my question?

Results are discordant or indirect. Juisci says so and stops.

What if the sources disagree?

Where two admissible sources conflict, both are shown, and the point of conflict is named.

What happens if my question contains patient-identifying information?

The question contains identifying information. It was stopped here, and nothing was kept.

What if my question falls outside Juisci’s clinical scope?

The question falls outside what Juisci covers. It says so and redirects it.

GOVERNANCE

Trust is not proclaimed. It is ensured by our rigorous approach.

  • Hosted in the EUData hosted in the European Union
  • GDPRUnder the EU General Data Protection Regulation
  • No patient dataNo patient data is collected or kept

A scientific advisory board of hospital clinicians tests what we build and says what we got wrong. Supervised by our medical team.

  • Prof. Stéphane Auvin

    Neuropaediatrics, childhood and adolescent epilepsy

    CHU Robert-Debré (AP-HP), Université Paris-Cité, Paris

  • Prof. Élie Azoulay

    Intensive care medicine

    Hôpital Saint-Louis (AP-HP), Paris

  • Dr François Bastard

    Paediatric surgery and paediatric urology

    CHU d'Angers

  • Prof. Jean-Marc Baste

    Cardiothoracic surgery

    CHU de Rouen

  • Prof. Vincent Cattoir

    Microbiology and bacteriology, antimicrobial resistance

    CHU de Rennes

  • Prof. Jean-Daniel Chiche

    Head of department, adult intensive care medicine

    CHUV, Lausanne

  • Dr Jean-Martin Cohen Solal

    Public health

    Dargia Conseils, former Director General of the Mutualité Française, Paris

  • Dr Jean-Claude Couffinhal

    Cardiovascular and thoracic surgery

    Académie nationale de chirurgie, Paris

  • Prof. Fabien Doguet

    Cardiac surgery

    Hôpital privé Jacques Cartier, Massy

  • Prof. Vincent Dubée

    Infectious diseases

    CHU d'Angers

  • Dr Jean-Marc Foult

    Cardiology, radiology and nuclear medicine

    American Hospital of Paris, Neuilly-sur-Seine

  • Prof. Gérard Friedlander

    Advisor to the board

    Physiology and nephrology

    Professor emeritus, Université Paris Cité, Paris

  • Dr Julien Laveine

    Child and adolescent psychiatry

    Head of the child and adolescent psychiatry unit, Canton of Jura (Switzerland)

  • Prof. Christian Lavigne

    Internal medicine

    CHU d'Angers

  • Dr Cédric Lebâcle

    Urology and uro-oncology

    Hôpital Bicêtre (AP-HP), Le Kremlin-Bicêtre

  • Prof. Dan Longrois

    Anaesthesiology and intensive care

    Hôpital Bichat-Claude Bernard (AP-HP), Paris

  • Prof. Jean Lubrano

    Head of department, hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery

    CHU de Caen Normandie

  • Prof. Alain Luciani

    Radiology and medical imaging

    Hôpital Henri-Mondor (AP-HP), Créteil

  • Dr David Luu

    President of the scientific advisory board

    Paediatric cardiac surgery

    New York City

  • Prof. Olivier Martinaud

    Head of department, neurology

    CHU de Caen Normandie

  • Prof. Jean-Christophe Mercier

    Paediatrics and paediatric emergency medicine

    Professor emeritus, Université Paris Cité, Paris

  • Prof. Jean-Damien Ricard

    Intensive care medicine

    AP-HP, Colombes

  • Prof. Cédric Rossi

    Clinical haematology, lymphoma

    CHU Dijon Bourgogne

  • Prof. David Tougeron

    Head of department, hepato-gastroenterology and digestive oncology

    CHU de Poitiers

  • Prof. Gérard Zalcman

    Thoracic oncology

    Hôpital Bichat-Claude Bernard (AP-HP), Paris

Trusted by 35,000 verified healthcare professionals

It takes a professional identifier.
That is why everyone asking a question here is a clinician.

KEEP THE THREAD

Your next question starts
where this one ended.

Free, and it stays free. The account keeps your thread, your specialty and what you have already read.

Create a professional account