Turn a clinical question into an evidence search

Choose your specialty

Select the specialty closest to your research question so the workflow has useful context.

Write a focused question

Name the population or problem, the comparison and the outcome of interest. Do not include patient identifiers.

Inspect the returned sources

Open citations and check whether the sources answer the question directly. Do not treat a fluent synthesis as source verification.

Save the next step

Save a useful paper, appraise it or continue into a deeper research question when the current answer leaves a gap.

A worked workflow example

Search a focused ICU research question and follow one relevant paper into your library. The sample input is de-identified. This walkthrough describes the workflow, not an answer about the effectiveness of mobilisation.

1. 01

   Your input

   Enter: 'What randomised evidence compares early mobilisation with usual care in mechanically ventilated adults in intensive care, and which functional outcomes were measured?' This provides a population, comparison and outcome without patient details. It makes no claim about effectiveness.

2. 02

   In AttendMe

   Open Chat and use Pick your specialty to choose Critical Care. Submit the question in the medical question field. Start with standard Chat. Use the Deep Research toggle when the task needs broader research and your account has an available query. Check the displayed usage limits.

3. 03

   What you inspect

   Read the answer together with its citation cards. Open a source behind an important claim. Identify whether it is an original trial, review or guidance. Check the population and measured outcome. If evidence is missing or indirect, ask a narrower follow-up.

4. 04

   Your reviewed result

   Use Save to Library on a useful citation. Example search record: 'Question: adult ICU mobilisation. Relevant paper: record title and PMID. Source type: trial, review or guidance. Outcome to inspect: name it from the paper. Remaining gap: state the question.' Continue with Analyze in Library for closer appraisal.

Before you reuse the result

Use this final check to decide whether the work is ready to discuss, save or continue. A useful output preserves its evidence, its scope and the questions it could not answer.

• Critical Care is selected and the input contains no patient identifiers.
• The cited paper addresses the stated population and comparison.
• Original studies, reviews and guidance have distinct roles in your notes.
• The next step is a saved source or a specific follow-up question.