Ø
Zero Prior

The evidence,
unsponsored.

The evidence your committee reviews was built to sell a product. The rep selected it. The manufacturer funded it. Many of the authors have financial ties to the companies whose devices they're studying. We have none.

Pre-registered, deterministic, reproducible.

Explore the evidence landscape →
The problem

A single high-cost implant standardization decision can move millions of dollars. The evidence informing that decision was assembled by the manufacturer seeking the contract. Nobody independently audits it. Nobody checks who funded the researchers. Nobody asks whether the spec differences the rep is highlighting actually show up in patient outcomes. Until now.

What We Audit
Spec Audit
We compare the engineering differences between systems and check whether those differences actually show up in patient outcomes — or just in the rep's pitch deck.
Evidence Independence
Every study in the submitted package is scored for design authority, statistical precision, methodological execution, and outcome completeness — rated on its own terms, including who paid for it.
COI Network
We cross-reference every author against publicly available financial disclosure data. Financial ties to manufacturers are documented, quantified, and disclosed in every report.

Most evidence tools tell you what the studies found. We tell you whether the studies can be trusted.

What an honest grade looks like
MODERATE · 79 Registry · n=5,494 · 15yr
Norwegian Arthroplasty Register: RSA Survivorship by Brand & Design
Massive sample, long follow-up, publicly funded — but measures revision only. No PROMs. No functional outcomes. Strong methodology, limited endpoint. That's a Moderate.
MODERATE · 74 RCT · n=50 · 12mo
SSC Repair in RSA: Double-Blinded, MCID-Applied, Registered
The best-designed RCT in the RSA implant literature. Double-blinded, registered, results interpreted against MCID. But n=50, 12 months, and three authors have device manufacturer ties.
LOW · 54 RCT · n=100 · 2yr
135° vs 155° NSA: The Most Important Question, Poorly Answered
Funded by Arthrex. Multiple authors hold IP royalties on study devices. 32% lost to follow-up. An RCT asking the right question — scored Low because of how it was executed and who paid for it.

Ready to talk?

30-minute scoping call. We'll discuss your committee's decision and whether an independent evidence audit would be useful.

Book a scoping call

Evaluating this for a network of hospitals? Let's talk.

Not ready for a call? Stay in the loop.

No spam. Occasional evidence updates and new category announcements.

ZP

Zero Prior was built by a doctor of physical therapy with direct experience on both sides of the orthopedic evidence problem — clinical practice and device commercialization. The scoring methodology is pre-registered, deterministic, and conflict-free. No manufacturer funding. No advisory relationships. No exceptions.

Operated by Vetra Health Strategies LLC. We work exclusively with health systems, GPOs, and plaintiff counsel. We do not work with device manufacturers.