Clinical Evidence & Decision Support · Assurance Record
VisualDx
VisualDx · Point of care + education · SaaS/web
Decision summary
- Suitable for
- Hospitals, health systems, medical schools
- Documentary gate
- Failed
- Scenario match
- No evaluated buying scenario currently covers this product
- Comparability
- Not yet comparable in this scenario
- Decision readiness
- HISTORICAL — Research only
- Documented evidence
- 0 of 2 evidence claims independently confirmed · confidence Low
- Critical unknowns
- scaled production deployment · documented economic outcomes
- Last independent review
- not yet measured
peer reviewed studyCluster-randomized controlled trial in J Med Libr Assoc (2019 Apr 1;107(2):151-162, doi 10.5195/jmla.2019.581) evaluated VisualDx as a clini…2019-04-01
Exact claim. Cluster-randomized controlled trial in J Med Libr Assoc (2019 Apr 1;107(2):151-162, doi 10.5195/jmla.2019.581) evaluated VisualDx as a clinical evidence technology for skin problems in primary care: 'Thirty-two PCPs and 433 patients participated', and time from index visit to skin problem resolution was similar in both groups (hazard ratio=0.92; 95% CI 0.70, 1.21; p=0.54).
- Source
- pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Type
- peer reviewed study
- Published
- 2019-04-01
- Retrieved
- 2026-08-27
- Verification
- unverified
- Confidence
- not stated
- Reviewer
- healthit-gate-v1
- Claim version
- v1
- Supports
- evidence_strength
- Score contribution
- Feeds evidence strength
Peer-reviewed. Check population, setting, and applicability to your workflow before generalizing.
Open pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.govpeer reviewed studyJournal of Investigative Dermatology study (Dulmage et al., 2021;141:1230-1235, doi 10.1016/j.jid.2020.08.027) of VisualDx's point-of-care A…2021-06-15
Exact claim. Journal of Investigative Dermatology study (Dulmage et al., 2021;141:1230-1235, doi 10.1016/j.jid.2020.08.027) of VisualDx's point-of-care AI system found 'The AI system achieved an accuracy of 68% in determining the single most likely morphology from the test image bank', while primary care physicians scored 36% without aids and 68% with a visual guide (P < 0.001); on 222 images across Fitzpatrick skin types the AI achieved 70% accuracy in Fitzpatrick I-III and 68% in Fitzpatrick IV-VI (P = 0.79).
- Source
- doi.org
- Type
- peer reviewed study
- Published
- 2021-06-15
- Retrieved
- 2026-08-27
- Verification
- unverified
- Confidence
- not stated
- Reviewer
- healthit-gate-v1
- Claim version
- v1
- Supports
- evidence_strength
- Score contribution
- Feeds evidence strength
Peer-reviewed. Check population, setting, and applicability to your workflow before generalizing.
Open doi.orgVerified provider experience is not yet publishable. Fewer than five independent provider organizations have contributed eligible reviews. Reviewer mode is off. Experience never changes documentary scoring, freshness, or rank.
Buyer lenses — evidence-backed bands (not a 0–100 rank)
Deployment, integration, data handling
- Integration maturity
- live — Listed on an EHR marketplace/partner program — live distribution.
- EHR path
- Epic App Orchard listing, UpToDate/point-of-care links
- FHIR / API
- UNKNOWN
Why unknown
Why. No reliable source on file. The platform does not infer values from weak sources.
What would close it. A primary source or independent verification.
- SSO
- Supported
- PHI / BAA
- No PHI storage by design
- Security attestations
- SOC 2
- FDA status
- UNKNOWN
Why unknown
Why. No FDA listing found for this product's functions in the tracked category.
What would close it. An FDA 510(k)/De Novo listing, or a clear statement that no regulated function is claimed.
- Pricing
- Not publicly listed
Technical provenance
snap_8a8a4c9bb810aee3 · 2026-08-27T04:05Z · build 6a9fe1b
Forecast calibration is not in the public snapshot — shown as UNKNOWN rather than read from SQLite.
Known limitations
- Deployment traction is UNKNOWN.
Why unknown
Why. No reliable source on file. The platform does not infer values from weak sources.
What would close it. A primary source or independent verification.
- Economic value evidence is UNKNOWN.
Why unknown
Why. No independently verifiable ROI claim (peer-reviewed, audited case, or independent benchmark) is on file.
What would close it. An audited implementation report or peer-reviewed study with payback/throughput numbers.