Like other comments I think the author addressed the wrong market.
Essentially he developped a tool to facilitate meta-analyses, both building them and then presenting the results.
So, his customers should have been people who usually are investing in meta-analyses. Doctors are not investing, merely passive consumers of existing analyses they can find.
So, research teams should have been his target, probably mainly in academia and in public health bodies. He could have grasped public funds.
The right market was researchers, i.e. in real life usually the ones owning biology PhDs (and often professor chairs), and not the physicians with medicine PhDs, who are the engineers of the human body (engineers applying known solutions, versus researchers looking for extending or consolidating the knowledge).
Essentially he developped a tool to facilitate meta-analyses, both building them and then presenting the results.
So, his customers should have been people who usually are investing in meta-analyses. Doctors are not investing, merely passive consumers of existing analyses they can find.
So, research teams should have been his target, probably mainly in academia and in public health bodies. He could have grasped public funds.
The right market was researchers, i.e. in real life usually the ones owning biology PhDs (and often professor chairs), and not the physicians with medicine PhDs, who are the engineers of the human body (engineers applying known solutions, versus researchers looking for extending or consolidating the knowledge).