We built our formulary argument on a readout that got walked back at the advisory committee. Nobody knew whether it deserved re-review for eighteen months.
Evidence-sensitive claim support intelligence
Stop stale claims from reaching the field.
NC monitors evidence behind claims in use and identifies changes that warrant re-review. Each assessment traces what changed, which claim it affects, and why.
Check your claims See a sample assessment
Your existing systems keep approval, document control, and final action. NC shows which claims need reviewer attention and why.
Design partners
[Logo] [Logo] [Logo] [Logo]
Early access teams in Medical Affairs, Market Access, and Evidence Operations.
The risk
Evidence changes before claim review cycles do. → You see which claims need review before the next cycle.
Illustrative review scenarios from teams who lived this:
Our competitive positioning assumed their label was narrower. It wasn't anymore by the time we presented at the P&T.
The pathway reflects the guideline from two cycles ago. Between updates, nobody checked whether the evidence had shifted.
We assumed the safety narrative was stable. Three abstracts and a label update later, the payer argument was already broken.
NextConsensus connects evidence movement to the affected claim, source trail, known use context, and reviewer question so teams know which items deserve scarce reviewer time.
Review cycles are too blunt for evidence that changes between them. → You get a ranked list, not another watch feed.
Every approved claim carries a prior evidence judgment. Months later, new studies, labels, guidelines, safety updates, and competitor evidence can make old wording weaker, stronger, narrower, or less precise than the record allows. NC turns that movement into a ranked re-review list instead of another watch feed.
Evidence moves. Review cycles hold. The gap is where stale, overbroad, or underused approved claims quietly accumulate.
Claim-specific review assessment — sample output
Evidence change, affected dimensions, reviewer question, and source trail — one card per flagged claim.
The first product
Start with the seven claims worth attention, not the 94 new papers. → You review what matters, not what's new.
Upload the approved claims your team already uses. NC returns a ranked re-review list: the few claims that deserve attention now, the reason each one appeared, and the assessment for each flagged claim. Each assessment preserves the source record, rationale, use context, explicit limits, and the decision your team records.
- Exact wording
The approved claim as your team uses it now, with the qualifier, population, comparator, and endpoint kept visible.
- What changed
The new study, label update, guideline, safety item, source removal, or wording change that pushed this claim onto the ranked re-review list.
- What still holds
The strongest remaining support and the boundaries it still depends on.
- What needs a caveat
Where the wording is too broad, too stale, or missing a qualification reviewers would expect to see.
- The decision to make
The specific decision a qualified owner can record: preserve, clarify, narrow, escalate, or retire.
Delivered as a ranked re-review list with source-traced claim-specific assessments. Every item includes source references, a review-date stamp, explicit limits, and a reproducible evidence basis.
How claims slip
Claims lose their caveats one word at a time. → You catch drift before it reaches the field.
The same approved statement, reused across assets and field materials, can lose its population, endpoint, timing, or source limit. What remains can look more current than the record allows.
Coverage “restricted to this subgroup” “restriction still current”
Pathway “after failure of standard therapy” “standard pathway step”
MLR claim “observed in trial population” “demonstrated broadly”
AI validation “validated for this deployment population” “validated”
Capacity “screening starts at this threshold” “capacity plan unchanged”
Process
Send the claims. NC returns the review list. → You decide, NC preserves the rationale.
PRESERVE support still holds CAVEAT scope changed ESCALATE review needed RETIRE support no longer fits
Evidence state is the input. The handoff is a claim-specific assessment and a place for your team to record its decision.
1
Send the claims you already use
Start with approved claim text, where it appears, the review owner, and the sources your team cares about.
2
NC checks what changed
NC compares those claims against new evidence, source changes, label or guideline movement, and wording drift.
3
Review the ranked list
You see which claims deserve attention, why each one appeared, and the question a qualified reviewer should answer.
4
Record the decision
Your team decides what to do. NC preserves the source trail, rationale, limits, and decision history.
Public examples run on Refract, the open-source claim-history engine. Private assessments include the sources your team wants included, use context, and review boundary.
Fit
This is for you if four things are true. → You know before you commit.
Your team has approved claims or medical narratives that keep getting reused.
Those claims depend on changing external evidence: labels, guidelines, studies, safety updates, or competitor evidence.
Re-review capacity is limited, so another watch feed is not enough.
Qualified reviewers must keep final authority over wording, approval, materiality, and action.
Start narrow enough to measure.
The first deployment should not be a vague monitoring program. It should be a focused review system with explicit claims, sources, event types, human verification, coverage limits, and pilot outcomes.
A defined set of material, evidence-sensitive claims.
A named set of scientific, regulatory, guideline, and competitive sources.
Explicit event types: new study, label update, guideline shift, safety item, source removal, comparator movement, or wording drift.
Human-verified source records with transparent limits.
Measurable outcomes: fewer low-value searches, better review yield, clearer provenance, and more expert time directed to the claims that need it.
Pilot metrics: Timeliness, review yield, and reviewer efficiency. A pilot should test whether the ranked list reaches reviewers while action is still useful, whether a meaningful share deserves expert consideration, and whether teams spend less time on broad searching, manual matching, and duplicate documentation.
Method basis
The method basis is evidence updating, not decision substitution.
These works frame the operating boundary: evidence changes unevenly, formal review can lag, and final institutional decisions require context NC does not own.
- The answer is 17 years, what is the question: understanding time lags in translational research
Background on the gap between evidence production and institutional uptake; useful as caution, not as a fixed timing claim.
- Living systematic review: 1. Introduction-the why, what, when, and how
Frames evidence synthesis as an updating problem, not a one-time search problem.
- GRADE Evidence to Decision frameworks: a systematic and transparent approach to making well informed healthcare choices
Shows why evidence assessment and final decisions should be structured separately.
Ready to see which approved claims warrant re-review? → Fit check is free, no commitment.
Send 100–300 approved claims, where they appear, the sources you care about, and the review owner. We confirm whether a ranked re-review list is measurable, then show which claims deserve attention and why.
Send claim text, intended use, audience, population, source list, and review window. We reply with fit confirmation before any work begins.