Recent briefs
In this retrospective cohort, childhood-onset Sjögren was associated with higher organ damage risk; not yet practice-changing without prospective validation.
In faricimab-refractory nAMD, switching to aflibercept 8 mg was associated with CST thinning; not yet practice-changing without randomized comparison.
In shallow anterior chambers, FLACS was associated with lower endothelial cell loss; the signal is preliminary and does not yet change practice pending randomized evidence.
For children with compromised capsular bag integrity, prefer ciliary sulcus fixation over capsular bag placement to reduce secondary glaucoma incidence.
After cataract surgery, prefer diquafosol or cyclosporine over routine care alone to improve tear-film stability and symptom scores in dry-eye patients.
In this cohort, CMT and BCVA were weakly associated at 3-6 months and 1-2 years post-vitrectomy; CMT alone does not reliably predict postoperative vision.
For ophthalmologists · 06:00 CET, weekdays
Every weekday, the ten new ophthalmology papers that matter in your subspecialty, checked against the source and graded. Twelve minutes, before your first patient.
14 days free · then €49/year
Recommended by
“I recommend rounds to any colleague who wants to stay on top of the literature without missing what matters. It reads and verifies, it does not just notify.”
Dr. med. Detlev R. H. Breyer
Breyer, Kaymak & Klabe Augenchirurgie / Premium Eyes · Düsseldorf
Ocular immunology and inflammation · Uçar Baytaroğlu IM et al. · 2026
For refractory non-infectious ocular inflammation unresponsive to conventional therapy, JAK inhibitors were associated with better control than placebo; the signal is preliminary and does not yet change practice.
International ophthalmology · 2026
Ophthalmology and therapy · 2026
This is the same evidence card a reader opens. Your first fourteen days are the full ten, every weekday. Keeping them is €49/year.
Why rounds. exists
Every week it was the same trade. Read fifty abstracts, or miss the one paper that would have changed your Tuesday afternoon in clinic. So I built rounds.
The literature does not slow down for clinic. rounds. is the part that reads it for you, overnight, so the choosing is already done by the time you sit down.
What your morning is now
From fifty abstracts to ten papers you can trust.
One scan over coffee, before the first patient. The night’s literature is already read, graded, and ranked for the way you practice. You decide what reaches you, the evidence does the rest, so you read with your own judgment rather than against a black box.
01 · Source
Every number checked against the source: effect sizes, sample sizes, the figures a decision turns on. Where the summary and the paper disagree, the paper wins.
02 · Fit
Relevance is scored against your subspecialty and your open clinical questions, nothing else. The ranking learns from how you rate what you read.
03 · Evidence
Evidence level, certainty grade, effect size and confidence interval ride along with every paper. You see how it was graded, weaknesses and all.
Ten papers in, you have read the day. Twelve minutes, before clinic.
Who builds it, and how it stays honest
“I read it myself every morning, before yours lands.”
As a physician, I built rounds with practicing specialists in the field. It began when a colleague asked me about a study I had not read, and I did not want that feeling again. So I built what I wished existed: an editor that reads the new literature overnight and checks every finding against the source. I read it every morning before I see patients. If a card is not good enough for my own reading, it does not ship.
Funded by its readers
rounds. takes no pharma money and runs no ads. The clinicians who subscribe are its only customers, so the only thing worth optimizing for is whether the evidence earns your twelve minutes.
Read by a clinician first
The physician who built rounds. is based in Zürich and reads the same brief you do. It has to clear the same bar he holds a journal to before he trusts it with a clinical decision.
Funded by its readers
“I don’t read papers outside of rounds anymore. It replaced my daily manual PubMed search.”
Dr. H.S.
Cataract and Refractive Surgeon · FEBO, FMH · Germany
“It is remarkable how many medical retina papers show up in my daily brief that I would have missed otherwise.”
Dr. H.M.
Medical Retina · Austria
“Exactly what I needed for my daily practice.”
Dr. I.H.
Ophthalmic Surgeon · FEBO · France
Quotes published with written approval.
13 cents a day to stay current
Every signup starts with fourteen days of the full brief. The founding rate is locked for life for the first 50 readers.
13 centsa day
About €4 a month. €49 a year, billed once. Cancel anytime.
How the 14 days work
Today
The full brief, from day one.
Day 14
Trial endsA reminder lands before anything is charged.
Day 15
€49 billed once a year.
About €4 a month, locked for life for the first 50. €49 a year, billed once
14 days free. Then about €4 a month (€49 a year, billed once).
Our promise
Try rounds free for 14 days. If you subscribe and it is not worth it, tell us within 90 days and we refund every cent.
Plus VAT where applicable · Reverse-charge for EU businesses · See the full offer →
Start here
Your first fourteen days are the full brief. €49/year keeps the full read on every paper: what the evidence means for your practice and how far to trust it.
Nothing to set up. Nothing to migrate. The full brief is ready the moment you join, and every weekday morning after.
14 days free · then €49/year
Founding Reader · First 50 · €49/year, locked for life