Public evidence only. No hospital scoring. No customer data. No integrations.
Evidence Portal
Methods & Evidence Boundary
How evidence is selected, graded, and applied in this portal, including scope, limitations, and the evidence boundary statement.
Evidence Boundary Statement
This portal contains public evidence only. It explicitly does not contain:
- Hospital scoring or benchmarking against named organizations
- Customer data from any ClinoPilot client engagement
- Patient data or any protected health information (PHI)
- Live integrations with any external system, EMR, or payer
- Predictive models applied to real organizations
Cases summarize published implementations by the named public organizations; they are not Clinopilot client outcomes. Metrics are sourced from published public datasets and cited.
Evidence Grading
Each piece of evidence in this portal is assigned one of three grades:
High
Sourced from peer-reviewed studies, systematic reviews, or large-sample government/industry datasets (n ≥ 500 or national scope). Finding has been replicated or is consistent across multiple sources.
Moderate
Sourced from single studies, regional datasets, or ClinoPilot-documented cases with clear methodology. Finding is directionally consistent but may not be fully generalizable.
Emerging
Based on expert consensus, early-stage evidence, or analogous findings from adjacent domains. Directionally plausible but requires validation in the specific context.
Source Selection Criteria
- Published within the last 5 years unless foundational (pre-2020 studies cited only when replicated in recent literature)
- Publicly accessible: government reports, peer-reviewed journals, major industry datasets, or organization-published research
- Methodology disclosed: sample size, setting, and limitations stated in the source document
- Relevant to small-to-mid-size clinic settings (1-50 physicians) or explicitly generalizable
- No sponsored content: sources are not included solely based on vendor funding without independent replication
Content Model
Evidence in this portal follows a structured hierarchy:
Article / Source
→
Evidence Metric
→
Workflow Model
→
Playbook
→
Case Study
Each layer is traceable to its upstream source. Metrics link to source articles. Playbooks reference the metrics and workflows that support them. Case studies reference the playbook methodology applied.
Limitations
- Evidence reflects published literature; publication bias may underrepresent null or negative findings
- ROI ranges are drawn from published benchmarks and may not apply to all clinic contexts, EMR systems, or payer mixes
- Implementation timelines are estimates based on documented cases; actual timelines vary by clinic size, vendor, and change readiness
- Canadian-specific evidence is less available than US evidence in most clinical workflow domains
- This portal is updated periodically; sources may have published updates not yet reflected here