MAGICapp

MAGICapp promotes itself as a revolutionary platform for “living guidelines” and shared decision-making. In reality, it is a presentation-layer tool that dresses static evidence with interactive buttons, offering no intrinsic synthesis, no methodological depth, and no evaluative intelligence.

• The term “living” is misleading—updates depend entirely on human input, not automated surveillance, NLP, or AI.
• It merely wraps GRADE tables in clickable boxes, without improving epistemic rigor or analytical clarity.
• MAGICapp introduces digital ceremony without substance: attractive visuals, pop-up justifications, and filters that do not alter the core epistemology of the recommendations.

• MAGICapp does not analyze data, compare trials, or perform meta-analysis.
• There is no integration with PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, Epistemonikos, or any evidence databases—users must import evidence manually.
• Evidence profiles are static summaries—not linked to the underlying data, statistical analysis, or critical appraisal processes.

It is a decorated frontend for GRADE tables, not a knowledge engine.

• Recommendations often include vague “rationale” paragraphs without links to primary studies or explicit citations.
• There is no visibility into how judgments on risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, or publication bias were reached.
• Users are encouraged to trust the interface rather than interrogate the evidence.

This fosters surface-level trust, not critical literacy.

• The platform prioritizes user-friendliness and narrative layout over analytical granularity.
• Justifications can be edited at will without audit trail or validation.
• Multilingual support is limited, and content curation is biased toward high-income institutions and English-language outputs.

The result is an institutionally polished echo chamber—not a critical, global evidence system.

• MAGICapp is proprietary: no export to standard formats (e.g., RevMan, GRADEpro), no API, no data transparency.
• Users are locked into MAGICapp’s interface and logic, unable to reuse or repurpose recommendations easily.
• The system enforces a single epistemological model—GRADE—without allowing dissenting frameworks (e.g., realist synthesis, GRADE-CERQual, Bayesian evidence models).

This is epistemological centralization under a slick user interface.

MAGICapp is not a synthesis tool—it is a GRADE table viewer wrapped in interface gloss.

It offers:

• No original analysis,
• No automated updating,
• No transparency of evidence evaluation.

Instead, it promotes visual polish over methodological rigor, and clickable certainty over critical reasoning.

Recommendation: Use only as a publishing shell for guideline dissemination. For genuine evidence synthesis, rely on tools like RevMan, RoB2, Epistemonikos, or independent critical appraisal.