Skip to main content
Describe a specific patient presentation or clinical decision point and Anara searches PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, and your uploaded library for current guidelines, trial data, and systematic review evidence. Returns a structured evidence summary with source citations. For clinicians who need depth on the evidence behind a recommendation, not just the recommendation itself.

​
1. Describe the task

The guidelines name the treatment. You need to know why, what the evidence looks like across different patient populations, and whether the recommendation holds for the specific presentation in front of you. Anara searches across PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, and your uploaded library, then returns a structured evidence summary: what the current guidelines recommend, what the trial data supporting those recommendations looks like, where the evidence is strong and where it relies on expert consensus, and what recent studies may complicate the picture. Every claim cites the source it came from. This is not a point-of-care drug calculator and it is not a dosing reference. It is the evidence depth behind a guideline recommendation, for situations where “the guidelines say so” is not enough and you need to understand what the primary literature actually shows. For rapid bedside lookup of standard dosing or drug interactions, purpose-built clinical references are faster. For understanding the evidence underpinning a recommendation before a complex case or a presentation, this is where Anara adds something distinct. Here a hospitalist physician in the Philippines is preparing for a ward round involving a complex comorbid presentation and needs the current evidence on antibiotic selection for a resistant organism. 
My patient is a 62-year-old female with type 2 diabetes and stage 3 CKD presenting with a urinary tract infection. The urine culture shows Staphylococcus haemolyticus resistant to ampicillin, oxacillin, tetracycline, and penicillin G.

Search PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov for:
1. Current guideline recommendations for antibiotic selection in resistant S. haemolyticus UTI in a patient with CKD
2. Any RCTs or cohort studies on antibiotic outcomes in this organism and resistance profile
3. Whether any guidelines specifically address dose adjustment for the recommended antibiotic in stage 3 CKD

Cite every guideline or study you reference. Flag any recommendation where the evidence is based on expert consensus rather than trial data.

​
2. Give Anara context

Required context
  • Nothing to upload. The prompt carries the clinical question and Anara searches live databases.
Optional context
  • Papers from your personal library on this condition or organism. Anara searches your library alongside PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov if you have relevant uploads.
  • The specific guideline body you want to prioritize (NICE, ADA, IDSA, ESC). Anara targets that organization’s publications first.

​
3. What Anara creates

A structured evidence summary covering current guideline recommendations, the primary trial data behind those recommendations, and any recent studies that qualify or extend the standard guidance. Every guideline and study is cited with a link to the source. Where the recommendation rests on expert consensus rather than controlled trial data, Anara flags that explicitly. The output is what you review before a ward round or a teaching presentation, not what you consult mid-procedure.

​
4. Follow-up prompts

​
Compare two guidelines on the same condition

When different bodies give different recommendations and you need to understand where and why they diverge. 
Compare the NICE and IDSA recommendations for antibiotic treatment of resistant S. haemolyticus urinary tract infections. Where do they agree, where do they diverge, and what evidence does each cite to support its recommendation?

​
Find the most recent trial data

When the guidelines are older than the literature warrants and you want to know what has been published since. 
Search PubMed for randomized controlled trials on antibiotic treatment of Staphylococcus haemolyticus UTI published in the last five years. Focus on studies that include patients with renal impairment. Summarize the primary outcomes and any safety signals.

​
Identify gaps in the evidence

When you suspect the guideline recommendation extrapolates from a different patient population than the one you are treating. 
Which aspects of the antibiotic guidance for this case rely on evidence drawn from immunocompetent patients or patients with normal renal function, rather than patients with CKD? Name the gaps explicitly and indicate whether any studies have addressed them.

​
5. Tricks, tips, and troubleshooting

​
How you word your prompt shapes what you get

Name the specific organism, resistance profile, and patient comorbidities in the prompt. A question about “UTI antibiotic selection” returns general guidance. A question about “S. haemolyticus resistant to ampicillin in a patient with stage 3 CKD” returns targeted evidence. Asking Anara to flag consensus-based recommendations separately from trial-supported ones changes the output from a summary to an evidence map, which is more useful for complex cases. If you want the most recent publications, add “published in the last three years” to the search instruction.

​
Check the output against your own understanding

Anara reaches PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov at the time of your query, but its index has a lag of days to weeks for very recently published studies and guidelines. For rapidly evolving infectious disease guidance (new resistance patterns, updated WHO recommendations), verify the cited guideline date and check the relevant organization’s website directly for the current version. Clinical decisions remain yours. The evidence summary informs judgment; it does not replace it.

​
What to do with the output next

Use the evidence summary as preparation for a case presentation, a teaching round, or a clinical protocol review. Where the summary identifies a gap between guideline recommendations and the evidence base for your patient’s specific presentation, that gap is worth documenting and raising in a formal clinical discussion. For ongoing complex cases, save the evidence summary as a note in Anara and update it when new papers are published.