What it does
RefCheckr verifies whether specific claims in a medical document are supported by the cited references. It compares statements in your content against the source material to identify unsupported, overstated, or inaccurately referenced claims.The problem it solves
A 20-page detail aid with 40 references takes a senior medical writer 2–3 hours to reference-check manually. After three rounds of revision, reference accuracy drifts: a p-value changes in the text but not in the reference table, a claim is reworded and now extends beyond what the source actually says, a reference number shifts and the wrong source is cited. These are among the most common MLR rejection reasons and the most time-consuming to fix late in the approval cycle. RefCheckr runs the first-pass verification systematically, flagging mismatches so the reviewer can focus their time on contextual accuracy and completeness rather than line-by-line numerical comparison.Where it fits in the playbook
RefCheckr is most relevant in these workflows:| Workflow | Role |
|---|---|
| Verify claims against references | Primary tool — systematic claim-to-reference verification |
| Extract key messages | Supporting tool — verify that extracted messages are supported by the source |
| Final human review | Supporting tool — reference accuracy check as part of final QC |
How to use it in a workflow
- Prepare your content — Ensure your document has clear, specific claims with associated references
- Run RefCheckr — Submit the content and reference materials for verification
- Review the results — RefCheckr will flag claims where support is weak, absent, or mismatched
- Make corrections — Update claims, references, or both based on the findings
- Re-verify if needed — Run again after significant changes to confirm corrections
What it does well
- Identifies mismatches between claims and cited sources
- Flags numerical discrepancies (wrong data points, incorrect statistics)
- Highlights claims that go beyond what the reference supports
- Speeds up reference checking for large documents
What it does not do
- Does not provide final regulatory or compliance clearance. RefCheckr is a verification support tool, not a regulatory approval system.
- Does not assess whether the right references were chosen. It checks whether cited references support the claims made, not whether better or more appropriate references exist.
- Does not replace a trained medical writer’s review. A human must still assess context, appropriateness, and completeness.
Risk tier
RefCheckr is used in high-risk workflows. Its outputs should always be reviewed by a qualified medical writer or reviewer. A clean RefCheckr result does not mean the document has no referencing issues; it means the automated check found none. Manual review remains essential.Complementary tools
RefCheckr focuses on a specific task: verifying whether claims in a document are supported by the cited references. Other tools serve different parts of the reference workflow:- Scite.ai — citation context analysis. Shows whether a citation supports, contrasts, or merely mentions a claim. Useful as a second layer alongside RefCheckr’s claim verification.
- Zotero / EndNote — store, organise, and cite references. Use these to manage your reference library; use RefCheckr to verify the claims you make against those references.
- Elicit — extract and compare findings across papers. Useful when building the evidence base before writing, while RefCheckr is used after writing to verify accuracy.