Evidence-sensitive claim support intelligence
What happens when you send your claims.
Teams submit claims they use. NC maps the source record, compares evidence against the prior record, and returns a ranked re-review list with assessments.
This is for you if:
- You own approved claims and need to know the process before pilot
- You're the reviewer who will receive the ranked list
- You're evaluating whether NC fits your review workflow
Not for you if:
- You want technical API docs — see partner program for embedding Refract, or Refract licensing for direct integration
- You need a monitoring feed — NC produces ranked re-review lists, not alerts
Who this is for
Medical Affairs teams checking approved claims. Regulatory, legal, compliance, and commercial reviewers monitoring payer-facing or field-facing statements. If your team needs to know whether changing evidence makes an approved claim worth re-reviewing, this is the starting point.
The customer decision comes after the assessment
Evidence state describes what changed. Your recorded decision describes what a qualified team chose to do with a prior claim. NextConsensus does not make the decision; it produces the assessment and preserves what your team records.
Preserve: Continue relying within the stated scope.
Caveat: Keep the item, but qualify wording, population, endpoint, or source boundary.
Narrow: Reduce the scope of reliance to the supportable population or use case.
Retire or expand: Remove unsupported wording or broaden a statement when new support is strong enough.
Escalate or defer: Route to a decision owner when needed, or document why no action is useful now.
What the ranked list contains
A prioritized list covering the affected claim, what changed and when, the authority level of the change, the assessment for each flagged item, known use context, and customer-owned decision options. Every finding is pinned to a specific source at a specific date and can be verified against the agreed source list. Same claim list, same data, same review window, same result.
Exact wording: The relied-on statement as it appears now, traced back through edits, wording changes, and citation shifts.
What changed: The public-record events that strengthened, weakened, or narrowed the statement.
What still holds: The strongest remaining support, drawn from authoritative sources and their boundaries.
What no longer holds: Assumptions, exclusions, or evidence gaps that no longer hold up under the current record.
Why this claim was flagged: The evidence changes that should cause your team to revisit whether prior support still fits the claim.
When a claim rises onto the list
A citation is removed. A qualifier is dropped from the wording. A safety signal appears in guidelines and reference pages. A clinical guideline updates. When any of these change, the original record no longer reflects the current evidence state. Request a refresh to see what changed since the last review. Re-review compares the same claim against the current source record, not a new consulting engagement.
Limits
Changes in the public record are a signal — sometimes strong, sometimes noise. A statement getting edited on a reference page doesn't always mean the clinical evidence has changed. Sometimes it does. We tell you when the signal looks real and when we're not sure.
We don't guess at FDA outcomes, generate investment signals, certify compliance, or claim to know what is medically true. We tell you what the reviewed sources support — and where renewed expert review is appropriate.
Method basis
The loop follows established evidence-review patterns.
The cited methods inform the control loop: evidence assessment, review questions, and final customer decisions stay separate.
- GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations
Separates evidence quality from the strength of recommendations and makes uncertainty explicit.
- 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.
- The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews
Supports transparent reporting of search, selection, appraisal, synthesis, and update methods.