OpenEvidence vs ClinicalKey (2025): The Synthesiser vs The Library
At a Glance
Who is it for?
OpenEvidence:Clinicians
ClinicalKey:Researchers / Academics
Why choose OpenEvidence?
- **Time Saving**: Reads multiple sources to generate one answer.
- **Simplicity**: Strips away the noise of academic formatting.
- **Mobile**: Easier to use on a phone.
Why choose ClinicalKey?
- **Full Text**: Access to copyright-protected books and journals.
- **Depth**: Nothing is summarised; you get the raw data.
- **Assets**: High-resolution images for presentations.
Feature Comparison
| Capability | OpenEvidence | ClinicalKey |
|---|---|---|
| Output | Summary & Citations | List of Documents |
| Content | Open Web / PubMed | Elsevier Proprietary |
In-Depth Analysis
Overview
OpenEvidence acts like a research assistant who reads the papers and tells you the conclusion.
ClinicalKey acts like a librarian who points you to the right shelf. If you want the answer, use OpenEvidence. If you want the book, use ClinicalKey.
Looking for a faster way?
While OpenEvidence and ClinicalKey are powerful tools, iatroX offers a free, AI-driven alternative focused specifically on rapid UK guideline retrieval and exam prep.
Use-Cases
Quick Clinical Decision
When to choose OpenEvidence
- **Winner.** Instant answer.
When to choose ClinicalKey
- Too slow; requires reading chapters.
Preparing a Lecture
When to choose OpenEvidence
- Good for facts.
When to choose ClinicalKey
- **Winner.** Essential for finding diagrams and source material.