ARF RHD Guidelines vs OpenEvidence
Price, ratings, monetisation and update history for both apps, side by side — with what reviewers say about each.
ARF RHD Guidelines
This app provides clinicians with up-to-date evidence and guidance for diagnosing and managing acute rheumatic fever and rheumatic heart disease. It includes a diagnostic calculator based on global criteria to simplify complex algorithms.
- Diagnosis and management of ARF/RHD
- Up-to-date evidence-based information
- ARF Diagnosis Calculator
- Global diagnostic criteria compliance
- Published by RHDAustralia
Read full descriptionHide full description
Rheumatic heart disease represents the greatest cardiovascular inequality between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. From 2013 to 2017, 94% of all new rheumatic heart disease cases were among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. This app assists clinicians in the diagnosis and management of acute rheumatic fever and rheumatic heart disease. Published by RHDAustralia, based at Menzies School of Health Research, the app contains the most up-to-date evidence and details various aspects of patient care. It is informed by the 2020 Australian guideline for prevention, diagnosis and management of acute rheumatic fever and rheumatic heart disease (3rd edition), available at https://www.rhdaustralia.org.au/arf-rhd-guideline. The app also contains an ARF Diagnosis Calculator which embeds the lengthy and complex ARF diagnosis algorithms into a series of simple questions that assist clinicians to diagnose ARF. The algorithms comply with the 2015 American Heart Association revision of the Jones Criteria for diagnosis of ARF, which has been endorsed by the World Heart Federation, making the Diagnosis Calculator now able to be used globally.
OpenEvidence
This app provides healthcare professionals with evidence-based clinical decision support and medical information. It acts as a search engine, sourcing answers from peer-reviewed literature and leading medical organizations to aid in high-stakes medical decisions at the point of care.
- Clinical decision support
- Medical search engine
- Sourced from peer-reviewed literature
- FDA and CDC data integration
- Partnerships with leading medical journals
- Verified healthcare professional access
Read full descriptionHide full description
Clinical Decision Support & Medical Search Engine for Healthcare Professionals (NPI Required) OpenEvidence is the most widely used clinical decision support platform and medical search engine among U.S. clinicians. According to independent studies, more American physicians use OpenEvidence than all other AI platforms combined. OpenEvidence is trusted by millions of verified healthcare professionals to make high-stakes clinical decisions at the point of care with answers that are sourced, cited, and grounded in peer-reviewed medical literature. Founded with the mission to organize and expand the world's collective medical knowledge, OpenEvidence is actively used daily by the majority of physicians in the United States. OpenEvidence is free for all verified U.S. clinicians. AN OFFICIAL AI PARTNER OF: The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) and its 11 specialty journals National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Nature Cochrane Library Wiley WHAT YOU GET: • Specific answers to clinical questions, with every claim cited to its source • 35 million+ peer-reviewed papers, 300+ medical journals, plus FDA and CDC sources • Licensed full text from NEJM, JAMA, Nature, Cochrane, and others • EvidenceGrade™: see the strength of the evidence behind every answer • CME and MOC credits, earned by asking questions • Visits for ambient documentation, Dialer for secure patient calls, and Voice Mode for hands-free answers CONTENT AGREEMENTS AND COLLABORATIONS: American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) American College of Cardiology (ACC) American Diabetes Association (ADA) American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) ASCO Guidelines American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO) American Urological Association (AUA) Plus AAO-HNS, GINA, SNO, SSO, and more. IN USE ACROSS: 10,000+ hospitals and medical centers nationwide, including Mayo Clinic, Mount Sinai, Cedars-Sinai, MSKCC, and Sutter Health. WHY CLINICIANS TRUST US: • HIPAA compliant across the platform • NEJM, JAMA, Nature, and NCCN—official content partners • Tens of millions of clinical consultations per month WHAT CLINICIANS SAY: “OpenEvidence is currently the best AI tool for medical information.” — Dr. Paul Sax, Infectious Disease, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Review in The New England Journal of Medicine Journal Watch (now NEJM Clinician) “In a morning report, a resident had a question that I didn’t know the answer to, but we were able to open OpenEvidence and get an answer on the spot.” — Dr. Kyle P. Lehenbauer, Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical Center “I use OpenEvidence multiple times during the day and every day. I am a better doc because of this. I expand my differential diagnoses and verify the science behind choices of treatments.” — Dr. Sharon E. Martin, Southern Huntingdon Medical Center Important note: OpenEvidence is available only to healthcare professionals. Users must verify their healthcare professional status before using OpenEvidence.
Screenshots
Verdict
The clearest difference is update cadence: OpenEvidence at weekly against ARF RHD Guidelines's every 16 months. OpenEvidence also leads on ratings volume (12K vs 1) and chart position (#34 vs unranked). ARF RHD Guidelines's advantage is review sentiment (100% vs 81%) and iOS requirement (13.0 vs 15.1). On price, rating, ads and in-app purchases there is nothing between them.
Scored on Price · Rating · Positive reviews · Number of ratings · Update frequency · Ads · In-app purchases · Monetization · Best chart rank · Devices · Requires iOS
Both are free to download. Neither carries in-app purchases, so what you see is what you pay.
On the App Store both sit at effectively the same score — 5.0 for ARF RHD Guidelines against 4.9 for OpenEvidence. That said, the two scores are not equally well evidenced: OpenEvidence has 12K ratings behind it against 1, so its average is the more settled of the two. Written reviews are what separate them: 100% of ARF RHD Guidelines's written reviews are positive against 81% of OpenEvidence's.
ARF RHD Guidelines ships an update every 16 months, OpenEvidence weekly. The most recent releases landed on October 29, 2026 and October 31, 2026 respectively.
| Parameter | ARF RHD Guidelines | OpenEvidence |
|---|---|---|
| Price | Free | Free |
| Rating | 5.0 (1 ratings) — better | 4.9 (12K ratings) |
| Positive reviews | 100.0% of reviews — better | 81.0% of reviews |
| Number of ratings | 1 | 12K — better |
| Update frequency | Every 16 months | Weekly — better |
| Ads | No | No |
| In-app purchases | No | No |
| Monetization | Free | Free |
| Best chart rank | — | #34 — better |
| Devices | iPhone, iPad, iPod | iPhone, iPad, iPod |
| Requires iOS | 13.0 — better | 15.1 |
| Further details — not scored | ||
| Size | 9 MB | 95 MB |
| Age rating | 12+ | +17 |
| Developer | Menzies School of Health Research | OpenEvidence Inc. |
Customer experience
ARF RHD Guidelines
OpenEvidence
Bugs and requests
ARF RHD Guidelines
Not enough reviews yet to summarise bugs or requests.
OpenEvidence
Reported bugs
1 issue- App not working in latest update
Requested features
2 requests- Availability on MacBook
- Integration with clinical workflows and EMRs
In-app purchases
ARF RHD Guidelines
No in-app purchases
OpenEvidence
No in-app purchases
Questions
Is ARF RHD Guidelines free?
Is OpenEvidence free?
Which has better reviews, ARF RHD Guidelines or OpenEvidence?
Do ARF RHD Guidelines or OpenEvidence have ads?
Which is updated more often, ARF RHD Guidelines or OpenEvidence?
Other comparisons















