Evidence OSMedical evidence & research
中文Custom request
Evidence OSUse cases & deliverables
Back to customer servicesLaw firms and dispute resolution teams

The issues are defined. Build case materials that can be checked item by item.

The firm has one care stage, three medical issues and lawful materials, and needs independent expert review of records, competing accounts and contemporary research.

How does this scope address your concerns?

You do not want favorable-only papers, facts mixed with inference, conclusions without record-page locations or unexplained contrary evidence.

When this scope fits
  • A defined care stage and set of questions, with original-material permissions, relevant jurisdiction and review roles that can be confirmed.
When the scope needs adjusting
  • Fabricating or rewriting originals, suppressing adverse evidence, issuing a forensic opinion through this service, replacing legal submissions or promising judicial acceptance.
REAL SOURCES · ILLUSTRATIVE REQUEST · DOWNLOADABLE SAMPLE

One perioperative case: trace three issues to original pages

Download sample packZIP

Three-issue review matrix

01Q-01 Abnormality records

MR-07, original p.26: abnormality recorded; complete monitoring series missing

02Q-02 Management rationale

MR-12, original p.41: intervention recorded; applicability requires contemporary evidence and expert review

03Q-03 Alternative explanations

Review prior conditions and perioperative factors together; no cause presumed

Questions and page locations are hypothetical. Full work follows the agreed stage, volume and 20-source scope; this page is an extract.

CheckFinding / sample contentUse
Facts versus inferenceAn abnormality being recorded differs from the response it should trigger.Locate the first in originals; assign the second to expert review.
Different evidence directionsSupporting, contrary and uncertain material remain locatable for every question.Do not omit material because it is unfavorable.
Review and changesNew material identifies which question it affects, with version differences.Complete one agreed revision within scope.
SOURCES USED IN THIS EXAMPLE
  1. SPC civil evidence provisions (2019 revision; originals, electronic records and specialists)
  2. SPC medical damage interpretation (2020 revision, in the 27-interpretation amendment)
Prepared 5 Oct 2026 · Selected references, not an exhaustive systematic search

Scope & acceptance

Work covered by the quote

  • Existing case illustration: one care stage, three medical issues, up to 300 pages, 20 contemporaneous sources, agreed medical review and one revision. Additional stages, questions or disciplines require a scope change.
  • Existing pilot references apply: CNY 30,000–100,000/case; complex cases CNY 100,000–300,000 or more. Fictional total CNY 50,000 includes a 6,000 assessment and 44,000 for research and agreed medical review, paid as 6,000/19,000/25,000. Additional stages, disciplines, issues or material volume require an agreed scope change. Legal, forensic, appearance, notarization, testing and other third-party costs are separate; identical completed work is not billed twice.

Acceptance criteria

  • Each of the three agreed issues links to material IDs and original pages, with supporting, contrary and uncertain evidence and applicability. Reviewer records, open issues and version changes are visible. Litigation success, compensation and responsibility shares are not acceptance criteria.

Checking the evidence

  • Volumes and budgets illustrate a use of the existing proposed pilot specification. Scenarios are hypothetical, not completed client projects, real transactions or judicially accepted results. Scope, authority, jurisdiction, personnel, deadlines and a formal quote require confirmation.
  • Contemporary sources support preparation of professional questions; they do not alone establish case facts, fault or legal responsibility. Lawyers and experts review their respective areas.
  • The materials workflow references civil proceedings in mainland China: retain originals, original media and provenance, with evidence identifiers. The lawyer reviews lawfulness, relevance, facts to be proved and submission procedure. An appropriately qualified expert reviews medical questions; any forensic assessment is separately undertaken by an eligible professional or institution under the applicable process. Hong Kong, Macao, Taiwan and overseas procedures, translations and data handling are checked separately; no universal admissibility is promised.
Workflow and inputs

From inputs to delivery

Explore the workflow and deliverable structure. This preview does not run searches, read real records or produce medical findings.

01 / WORKFLOW PREVIEW

Define three questions and acceptance terms

Check authority and conflicts, then agree the care stage, three questions, material volume, 20-source scope, reviewers, due date and one revision.

Agree scope before commissioning
Methods, sources and professional responsibilities
THE BASIS FOR THIS SCOPE

Why this approach? Inspect the basis.

Case issues, the relevant date and original materials define the role of the medical evidence.

ORIGINAL RULES

Civil Evidence Rules · China

Supreme People’s Court · China

Link the materials to the issues in the case

Read the civil-evidence rules and agree purpose, material format, deadlines and professional responsibility with the lawyer.

Scope & access conditions

The lawyer checks jurisdiction and the relevant legal date. Literature review is not statutory appraisal or a guarantee of admissibility or success.

Open official source
PUBLIC DATABASE

PubMed

NLM / NIH

Check papers, abstracts and original sources

Find literature for a clinical question and inspect authors, publication dates, abstracts and full-text links.

Scope & access conditions

PubMed provides citations and abstracts, not journal full text. Access depends on the publisher or archive.

Read the official description
Open official source
METHOD REFERENCE

GRADE · Cochrane Handbook

Cochrane · Chapter 14

Show effect size and confidence separately

Present important outcomes, relative and absolute effects, available data and certainty, with reasons for downgrading.

Scope & access conditions

GRADE evaluates a body of evidence for a particular outcome. Database inclusion or one study does not automatically establish high certainty.

Open official source

These references support problem definition and evidence appraisal. Your conclusions still require project-specific sources and professional review.

The value of this commissionEOS organises contemporaneous literature, both-sided evidence, inferences and unknowns by issue beyond a chronology.

TO L · FROM ISSUES TO CASE MATERIALS

Prepare the case for the lawyer and the expert.

  1. 01

    Lawyer-defined issues

    Confirm the case purpose, jurisdiction, care or advertising dates, permissions and evidentiary deadlines.

  2. 02

    Reviewable materials

    Retain originals and media. Link the timeline, source IDs and pages to supporting and contrary evidence and unresolved questions.

  3. 03

    Expert review and legal use

    Appropriate experts review medical and methodological issues. The lawyer checks purpose and submission; eligible professionals handle any separate appraisal or appearance.

Use, jurisdiction and professional responsibility

The materials workflow references civil proceedings in mainland China: retain originals, original media and provenance, with evidence identifiers. The lawyer reviews lawfulness, relevance, facts to be proved and submission procedure. An appropriately qualified expert reviews medical questions; any forensic assessment is separately undertaken by an eligible professional or institution under the applicable process. Hong Kong, Macao, Taiwan and overseas procedures, translations and data handling are checked separately; no universal admissibility is promised.

Materials support preparation and lawful submission, without presuming judicial acceptance, an appraisal conclusion or success in litigation.

Read the mainland China civil-evidence rules
Reuse and updates after delivery
  • Stable issue and material identifiers show what new evidence affects and what needs additional expert review. Reusable searches and completed work are removed from later duplicate charges.

Agree reuse rights, retention and export periods, and future update fees when scoping.

Questions before commissioning

Will material adverse to the client be retained?

Yes. Supporting, contrary and uncertain materials appear together. Facts, party statements and medical inference are separated, without presuming either party correct.

Can the report be taken to court?

It can support preparation of materials for lawful submission by the lawyer and expert. Evidence type, submission format, deadlines, examination and acceptance depend on the applicable procedure. The EOS package is not automatically a forensic expert opinion.

How do we start, and should we upload the full records?

Submit a free anonymous scoping request with the issue, jurisdiction, procedural stage, volume and deadline. The current form does not accept medical attachments or sensitive original images. Agreed materials follow confirmation of authority, confidentiality, a secure transfer channel, reviewers and the contract. Contract and payment are confirmed separately.

Define the delivery for your actual question.

Add your goal, available inputs and timing. Agree scope, review responsibilities and a quote before commissioning.

Request scope & quote
Explore other situations
Law firms and dispute resolution teams

A new case: identify the medical issue and missing materials first.

One assessment memorandum, one material-gap and reviewer-role table, and a task-by-task time log, separating recorded facts from inferences still requiring professional checks.

Initial assessment: CNY 5,000–15,000; hourly work: CNY 1,500–4,000 per hourSee the deliverable
Law firms and dispute resolution teams

Medical cases recur all year. Make every question, source and hour traceable.

An illustrative 100-hour annual pool, task and remaining-hour logs, in-scope memoranda, four quarterly reviews, and separately maintained case materials and reviewer records.

CNY 200,000–800,000+ per yearSee the deliverable
Law firms and dispute resolution teams

Deterioration and response times are disputed. Reconstruct the care timeline.

One care timeline linked to original pages, three timing-issue matrices, contemporary sources and alternative explanations, missing-record list, expert questions and one revision.

CNY 30,000–100,000 per case; complex cases: CNY 100,000–300,000+See the deliverable
Law firms and dispute resolution teams

Post-injury limitations and future care: what is documented, and what needs formal assessment?

One injury-and-care timeline, three medical-issue matrices, examination and function-record index, future-care support and applicability, expert questions and one revision.

CNY 30,000–100,000 per case; complex cases: CNY 100,000–300,000+See the deliverable
Law firms and dispute resolution teams

Health-product and wellness claims: how far does the evidence actually support them?

Three claim–evidence–limitation matrices, advertising and transaction index, product/population/use matching table, supporting/contrary/uncertain evidence, legal and expert questions, and one revision.

CNY 30,000–100,000 per case; complex cases: CNY 100,000–300,000+See the deliverable
Law firms and dispute resolution teams

An expert meeting or hearing is approaching. Link questions and sources to original pages.

Three professional-issue indexes, original-record/report page crosswalk, evidence direction and limits, expert-discussion questions, one discussion memorandum and one revision.

CNY 30,000–100,000 per case; complex cases: CNY 100,000–300,000+See the deliverable