About OutcomeReference

OutcomeReference lets you find the exact risk & protective factors to increase physical performance or manage chronic diseases such as diabetes. Get the right nutrition advice, physical activity techniques & a list of environment factors to optimize. This is powered by one of the largest, most up to date and independent health database, and a team dedicated to real & practical solutions to get you better.

In one screen, see your current risk factors, your estimated outcomes, and calculate the best dosage for nutrients and physical activity. Get advice from our smart training coach and meal planner (Canada and premium only)

Currently, we track:

  • 194 risk & protective factors. These can be nutrition, beverages, physical activity, lifestyle & environment, manufactured substances or pollutants,
  • 188 health outcomes, from physical performance to diseases or health conditions in various systems,
  • 675 medical and sports medicine studies, from 1982 to 2017, with 2163 effects

A premium accountis available for more advanced users look for both advanced performance or health optimization.

Who is OutcomeReference

We are a small but dedicated team of engineers, designers, researchers and medical professionals based in Montreal, Canada. We are thrilled to make a solution that makes life better for you.

We bring our experience and knowledge of living with chronic diseases such as diabetes or for elite marathon training. We live and breathe our products, and passionnate to bring great design, good story-telling, advanced engineering, backed by the latest medical research to bring you a great product that will bring the best in you!


Findings from PubMed, Medline, Cochrane database, WHO Library (WHOLIS), Nature, google scholar and specialized health publications such as Sports Medecine journals are reported & aggregated.

We priorize meta-analysis and systematic reviews. Furthermore, results are classified in the following categories:

  • Needs more researchreflects a small number of studies, studies of weak design or with inconsistent results, and/or limitations on the generalizability of the findings. This is for most animal research or preclinical and Phase I studies. However, these studies are still useful to reinforce choices on related factors that have stronger evidence, to clarify that it is not possible to choose a factor, or to identify an area of possible exploration.
  • Evidence lowreflects sufficient evidence to draw limited conclusions. The level of certainty may be restricted by certains limitations in the evidence, such as the amout of evidence available, inconconsistencies in findings or limitations in methodology or generalizability.
  • Evidence highreflects a large, high-quality and consistent body of evidence in meta-analysis, systematic reviews and Phase IV studies. Findings have been validated by multiple independent research teams, in various countries and continents. Furthermore, there are little to no adverse effects reported.

Findings from animal research are not usually reported, unless they reveal unique insights. They are clearly annotated as needing more research.

Our main work is finding common determinants amongst studies for possible comparison and correlation. This mean we might not taking into account findings on unique results in a scientific team, even if they are most interesting.

Note: We do NOT undertake scientific study in any form. We encourage users to go to the source by reading the studies, see what is relevant to them and discuss with their doctor or health professional what is best for them.


Studies have different trial designs and trial lengths. They also have different metrics and different determinants, even when the name is identical. Furthermore, it is not possible to do a simple addition of outcomes. Determinants can have mixed interaction or side-effects, and might not reflect your personal health history.

The outcomes can only give a rough estimation and should be discussed with your doctor and health professional.

Types of Trial Designs


A way of combining data from many different research studies. A meta-analysis is a statistical process that combines the findings from individual studies.

Example: A meta-analysis of alcohol drinking and cancer risk

Systematic Review

A summary of the clinical literature. A systematic review is a critical assessment and evaluation of all research studies that address a particular clinical issue. The researchers use an organized method of locating, assembling, and evaluating a body of literature on a particular topic using a set of specific criteria. A systematic review typically includes a description of the findings of the collection of research studies. The systematic review may also include a quantitative pooling of data, called a meta-analysis.

Example: The effectiveness and efficacy of Rhodiola rosea L.: a systematic review of randomized clinical trials.

Randomized Controlled Trial

A controlled clinical trial that randomly (by chance) assigns participants to two or more groups. There are various methods to randomize study participants to their groups.

Example: Treatment of anxiety, tension and restlessness states with Kava special extract WS 1490 in general practice: a randomized placebo-controlled double-blind multicenter trial.

Cohort Study (Prospective Observational Study)

A clinical research study in which people who presently have a certain condition or receive a particular treatment are followed over time and compared with another group of people who are not affected by the condition

Example: Associations of specific types of sports and exercise with all-cause and cardiovascular-disease mortality: a cohort study of 80 306 British adults

Cross-sectional study

The observation of a defined population at a single point in time or time interval. Exposure and outcome are determined simultaneously.

Example: Alcoholic drinks: Important triggers for asthma

Case-control Study

Case-control studies begin with the outcomes and do not follow people over time. Researchers choose people with a particular result (the cases) and interview the groups or check their records to ascertain what different experiences they had. They compare the odds of having an experience with the outcome to the odds of having an experience without the outcome

Example: Dietary Intake and Risk for Reflux Esophagitis: A Case-Control Study

Case Report

A report on a series of patients with an outcome of interest. No control group is involved

Example: Capsaicin can alter the expression of tumor forming-related genes which might be followed by induction of apoptosis of a Korean stomach cancer cell line, SNU-1

Animal research

Studies conducted using animal subjects.

Example: Caloric restriction reduces age-related and all-cause mortality in rhesus monkeys.


This project is part of series of healthcare applications

Icons by icons8, site design from semantic-ui, user support and feedback from smooch