The overwhelming amount of (new) information in medicine and healthcare necessitates time-efficient and learner-centric ways of CME.

Less is more

We believe that short case series with targeted feedback around important clinical topics are more effective and efficient than comprehensive programs providing full details.


Educational needs are determined by our expert panels and could also be identified by our system of (bi)weekly online cases in which physicians are asked to a make a clinical decision for a given patient case.

Best available evidence

Mirrors of Medicine (MiMe) uses the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method to identify the best available evidence at the patient-specific level. The primary source is always information from high-quality clinical studies. Where these studies are lacking or insufficiently detailed, the collective judgement by an expert panel is used as a complementary source. For each diagnostic or therapeutic option, the available evidence is summarised with reference to key publications.


All cases, clinical decisions and related materials are reviewed every year for being up-to-date. If new scientific evidence or new treatments necessitate reconsideration, a new appraisal by the expert panel is organised.


The materials are developed in a fully independent and autonomous manner. Topics may be proposed by various parties (physicians, societies, pharmaceutical industry, payers), but relevance and priorities are determined by ISSECAM INPA together with the Expert panel of the respective disease area.


The case platform has been accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (EACCME). For each topic, including 5 clinical cases and related evidence, 1 CME credit can be earned if the learner passes an assessment consisting of 10 multiple-choice questions (at least 8/10 answers correct).