Back to customer servicesPharma medical, R&D, and market access teams

Your research budget is due. Which evidence is the product actually missing?

A development or access discussion is approaching. You have many documents, but the differences between target patients and pivotal-trial populations remain unclear.

How does this scope address your concerns?

Another study could address the wrong gap; selecting only favourable papers could overstate the product claim.

When this scope fits

For medical or development teams with one defined indication and one comparator who need to assess evidence gaps first.

When the scope needs adjusting

A full SR/Meta-analysis, trial execution, data acquisition or formal submission needs a separate scope. This package does not guarantee superiority, registration or reimbursement access.

REAL SOURCES · ILLUSTRATIVE REQUEST · DOWNLOADABLE SAMPLE

Chronic-disease medicine: find the older-patient evidence gap

Download sample packZIP

Target patients versus available evidence

01Target patients

Age over 75, comorbidities and common co-medication; client to confirm

02Age coverage

Trial age distribution not supplied; key missing item

03Safety and dose

Locate evidence by renal function, comorbidity and medication

04Claim boundary

Separate overall results, subgroup findings and extrapolation

Missing items are illustrative. The FDA draft informs fields; it is not a product compliance or efficacy finding.

Check	Finding / sample content	Use
Claim C01	“Suitable for all older patients with comorbidities” exceeds the illustrative materials	Obtain age/comorbidity distributions before reviewing wording
Research priority	Target-population coverage is missing before another favourable article list	Separate material retrieval, additional analysis and a new study

SOURCES USED IN THIS EXAMPLE

FDA: Geriatric information in prescription drug labeling (draft)

Prepared 5 Oct 2026 · Selected references, not an exhaustive systematic search

Scope & acceptance

Work covered by the quote

Illustrative scope: 1 indication, 1 comparator, up to 1,000 records and 40 full texts, agreed human review and 1 discussion. A full SR/Meta-analysis is excluded.

Pilot reference: CNY 50,000–200,000 per package. Fictional budget: CNY 60,000—question and search CNY 15,000; extraction and agreed review CNY 30,000; report and discussion CNY 15,000. Milestones: CNY 18,000 at start, CNY 24,000 at draft and CNY 18,000 at delivery. Final pricing requires scope confirmation.

Acceptance criteria

Favourable, unfavourable and uncertain findings are recorded. Public evidence and product materials are labelled separately; each claim links to its sources and limitations.

Checking the evidence

Allowances follow illustrative scopes in the current pilot proposal. Customer situations, walkthroughs and budgets are fictional examples, not actual orders, product findings or validated savings.
Authorised product and trial materials, target indication and comparator; public literature retains source details and search versions.

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 the task

Illustrative request: a chronic-disease drug team asks whether pivotal trials adequately cover older patients with comorbidities.

Methods, sources and professional responsibilities

THE BASIS FOR THIS SCOPE

Why this approach? Inspect the basis.

Check the match between product, population, use conditions and outcomes before defining a supported claim.

OFFICIAL GUIDANCE

FTC · Health Products

Federal Trade Commission · US

Does the research match the product claim?

Scientific support for health-product claims should match the product and claim, rather than merely a similar ingredient.

Scope & access conditions

This is US guidance. Other markets require separate assessment; it is not an approval or compliance conclusion.

Open official source

PUBLIC DATABASE

ClinicalTrials.gov

NLM / NIH

Check studies and reported results

Review study objectives, eligibility, locations, status and reported results, then identify questions for the clinical team.

Scope & access conditions

Sponsors or investigators submit the records. A listing is not government approval of safety or effectiveness, or a determination that you should participate.

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 scopes one indication and comparison into answerable gaps and priorities for the next study.

Drug evidence and gap packageCompare alternatives and value

Where should research money go first to address a real development or access gap?

What to assess	IQVIA / EVERSANA	Evidence OS · Commissioned scope
Service focus	IQVIA offers multi-market synthesis; EVERSANA connects gaps to evidence-generation planning.	EOS scopes one indication and comparison into answerable gaps and priorities for the next study.
When to choose	Their full networks suit clinical execution, international access and complex indirect comparisons.	Example: one indication and comparator, up to 40 full texts, agreed review and one discussion; not a full SR.

What the fee pays for: Planning reference: CNY 50,000–200,000 per package; trials, data and meta-analysis/ITCs require separate feasibility and fees.
Value beyond this task: Claim sources, comparison feasibility and gap priorities can transfer to internal teams or a CRO.
How to assess value: Record each study option’s cost and decision relevance, then evaluate duplicate work actually stopped or reduced.

Verify analytic capability, market requirements and rights; significance and approval are not promised.

CHECK THE OFFICIAL SERVICE SCOPEIQVIA · Evidence Synthesis fact sheet EVERSANA · HEOR, Value & Evidence

Reuse and updates after delivery

Approved searches and data can carry into a later full study. Duplicated work is deducted when quoting, so the next investment addresses genuinely missing evidence.

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

Questions before commissioning

Can we start with one indication?

Yes, discuss this defined package first. Additional indications, markets or comparators need scope confirmation and are not automatically included.

What if findings differ from our expectations?

Unfavourable and uncertain evidence is retained. Acceptance is based on sources, coverage and records, not the direction of findings.

Can we buy now or upload internal trial materials?

You can currently view examples and draft a request. Formal transfer, staffing and contracting require separate arrangements. Do not include trade secrets or patient information in a public request description.

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

Pharma medical, R&D, and market access teams

The baseline is ready, but your teams are using different versions.

Maintain a shared evidence index and change log, with quarterly explanations of which agreed questions need another discussion.

CNY 200,000–1,000,000+ per yearSee the deliverable