OpenEvidence represents a significant advancement in clinical decision support systems, positioning itself as a comprehensive medical information platform exclusively for verified healthcare professionals. The application requires National Provider Identifier (NPI) verification, ensuring access remains restricted to qualified medical practitioners while maintaining the integrity of its specialized content. The platform's core functionality centers on delivering precise, evidence-based answers to clinical queries, with every response thoroughly sourced and cited from peer-reviewed medical literature. Recent integration of New England Journal of Medicine content, including published articles, multimedia materials, and invited review articles from leading medical experts, significantly enhances the depth and authority of available information. The system employs advanced AI technology to parse complex medical questions and return structured, clinically relevant responses with complete citation trails. User experience demonstrates thoughtful design for clinical workflow integration, featuring an intuitive interface optimized for rapid information retrieval during patient care. The platform organizes content systematically, allowing healthcare professionals to quickly navigate between different evidence levels, study types, and clinical recommendations. Real-world usage patterns indicate particularly strong adoption among physicians needing immediate access to current medical evidence during consultations or rounds. User feedback consistently highlights superiority over traditional resources like UpToDate, with reviewer Edboy05 (July 21, 2025) noting the app operates 'on another level' compared to established platforms. Multiple reviews, including from NicoleLynS (July 17, 2025), emphasize comprehensive utility across 'all aspects of care,' while fosmonaut (July 22, 2025) specifically praises the advantage over general AI tools through 'relevant sources' and medical specificity. The consensus indicates strong satisfaction with evidence quality and practical clinical application. The application demonstrates notable strengths in content authority and citation transparency but faces limitations regarding content breadth compared to established comprehensive databases. While excellent for specific clinical questions, some specialized subfields may have less extensive coverage. The platform serves as an ideal supplemental tool for evidence-based decision making rather than a complete replacement for comprehensive medical databases, particularly valuable for quick reference during patient encounters and continuous medical education.