Skip to main content

What this page is

A quick decision aid for picking the right tool for a given medical writing task. It maps common jobs-to-be-done to the tool best suited to them, drawing on both third-party tools and the PharmaTools.AI suite. Use it as a starting point, not a prescription. Tool choice also depends on your organisation’s policies, the sensitivity of the data involved, and your own familiarity with the tool. The writer remains responsible for verifying outputs against the source.
Choose the tool based on the job to be done, not the model.

What are you trying to do?

Work with sources

You have papers or internal documents and need to explore, extract, synthesise, or draft from them.

Draft from scratch

You are writing new text, building slides, creating figures, or transcribing spoken content.

Medical-writing-specific task

You need to verify claims, check MLR compliance, generate a plain language summary, or use another MW-specific tool.

Working with sources

JobRecommended toolWhyAlternative
Explore or question a paperNotebookLMSource-grounded Q&A with inline citations back to the documentClaude with uploaded PDFs
Synthesise and draft across multiple sourcesClaude CoworkPersistent project workspace; strong at cross-document synthesis and outliningNotebookLM (for Q&A), ChatGPT Projects
Structured extraction and comparison across papersElicitExtracts predefined fields (population, intervention, outcomes) in a consistent tableManual extraction in Claude Cowork
Quick research-question framingConsensusFast sense of what the literature says on a focused questionPerplexity
Citation context and sentimentScite.aiShows whether a paper is supported, contrasted, or mentioned by later work
Literature search (MCP-enabled)PubCrawlStructured PubMed search callable from Claude or ChatGPT via MCPDirect PubMed, Google Scholar

Drafting from scratch

JobRecommended toolWhyAlternative
General text drafting and rewritingClaude or ChatGPTStrong writing quality, flexible prompting, long contextGemini
Enterprise Word and PowerPoint draftingMicrosoft CopilotIn-suite integration that respects M365 tenant boundariesClaude/ChatGPT with copy-paste
Publication-quality scientific figuresBioRenderPurpose-built biological illustration libraryAdobe Illustrator, PowerPoint
Conceptual diagrams or AI-generated slidesNapkin or GammaFast visualisation of concepts or draft decks from textPowerPoint + Copilot
Transcription of calls, ad boards, KOL interviewsOtter.ai or Fireflies.aiAccurate transcripts with speaker separation and searchable archiveMicrosoft Teams native transcription

Medical-writing-specific tasks

JobRecommended toolWhy
Verify claims against referencesRefCheckrChecks whether each claim is actually supported by the cited source
MLR compliance checkMedCheckrReviews copy against promotional compliance expectations before MLR submission
Plain language summariesPLS GeneratorConverts clinical content into compliant, readable lay summaries
Poster and congress Q&A prepPosterLensGenerates anticipated questions and responses from a poster or abstract
Patient-facing contentPatiently AITailors content to patient audiences with appropriate tone and reading level
Tailor text to different audiencesLLMentorAdapts draft content across HCP, patient, payer, and internal audiences

A note on overlap

Several tools overlap. Claude and ChatGPT are largely interchangeable for drafting; Consensus, Perplexity, and Elicit all help with literature exploration; Napkin and Gamma both generate visual slides. The tables recommend one starting point per job — switch to an alternative if your organisation already has a preferred tool or a licence in place. The most important decision is usually not which tool you use, but whether you are applying AI to the right stage of the task. See Risk levels and Human in the loop for the principles that should guide that choice.