A medical congress is not, in any meaningful sense, a standard conference. It asks organizers to coordinate hundreds of scientific abstracts through formal peer review, to run dozens of sessions in parallel, to satisfy regulatory requirements for continuing education credits, to uphold strict standards of data security, and to manage sponsorship arrangements that often carry significant financial stakes.

When these responsibilities are pushed through spreadsheets and scattered email threads, the strain becomes visible rather quickly, since missed deadlines, version control failures, incomplete attendee records, and a diminished delegate experience tend to follow close behind.

The cost of choosing poorly is not abstract either, because a congress that runs into these problems can damage an institution’s reputation, discourage future attendance, invite compliance violations, and quietly erode the revenue that registration and sponsorship were meant to provide. A congress that runs well, by contrast, tends to draw stronger speakers, more committed sponsors, and attendees who return year after year.

 

International medical conferences have increased by over 40%. Experts attribute statistics as this to a growing need for updation and innovation in a field that is as vast as medicine and healthcare.

Quite simply put, there never has been and there will never be a dearth of medical congresses or conferences. But what appears to be in dearth are capable software management tools and/or platforms to help run these events. Scientific conference softwares have always existed in the market. However, something much more precise, something like medical congresses are rarely borne in mind when software makers build their tools. Contemporary conference management softwares like Dryfta are changing exactly this misattribution. At Dryfta, we refuse to tag medical conferences as just one among the large pool of scientific events aka rooms where the serious guys meet and discuss jargon that flies right over most heads.

In this blog, we’re on a mission to round up the best conference platforms for medical congresses in the event management industry. While only one, or perhaps two platforms have direct experience in hosting a medical congress, we’ve compiled this list on the basis of their best features, analyzing their suitability in real-time medical gatherings. We are comparing the best conference platforms for medical congresses and help organizers choose the right solution for their specific needs. Rest assured, be sure to exit this article having found the best conference platform(s) for your next medical congress!

What Makes Medical Congresses Different From Regular Conferences?

A typical conference tends to revolve around networking opportunities, a handful of keynote speakers, and an exhibition hall, but a medical congress operates according to an entirely different logic. Before any platform can be fairly evaluated, it helps to understand exactly where that logic diverges.

Scientific Abstract Management

The foundation of any medical congress is peer-reviewed research, and this means that sessions are never simply chosen by an organizing committee on instinct. Instead, they pass through a structured submission and review process that closely mirrors academic publishing. Researchers must submit abstracts that follow specific formatting conventions, often constrained by word limits and required sections covering background, methods, results, and conclusions. Those abstracts are then evaluated by multiple subject matter experts, frequently under anonymous conditions, using scoring rubrics paired with written feedback. Since outcomes rarely fall into a simple binary, decisions tend to land in one of several categories, including acceptance, rejection, or conditional acceptance, and each path carries its own follow-up workflow. Duplicate detection systems are also necessary, given that the same abstract is sometimes submitted to competing conferences at the same time. Once abstracts clear review, they still need to be organized into tracks, symposiums, oral presentations, poster sessions, and virtual formats, which is a task far beyond what general event platforms were ever designed to handle, since those tools manage session selection rather than the layered demands of peer review.

Complex Speaker Management

Scale introduces its own complications, and a large medical congress can easily feature anywhere from 200 to 1,000 speakers spread across dozens of simultaneous tracks. Handling that volume requires considerably more than a basic speaker directory. Platforms built for this work tend to maintain comprehensive speaker profiles that include credentials, conflict-of-interest disclosures, and a record of prior speaking engagements. They also provide upload portals where speakers can submit slides, audio, and multimedia while retaining version control over each file. Because congresses increasingly draw international participants, these systems must coordinate schedules across multiple time zones and offer tools for managing last-minute changes without unraveling the broader program. Automated communication rounds out the picture, since reminders, technical requirements, and moderator assignments are far easier to track through software than through memory alone.

CME and Continuing Education Requirements

Many medical professionals attend congresses not purely out of intellectual curiosity but because continuing education credits are required to maintain their licenses, and this makes CME tracking anything but optional for most medical events. The work involved is substantial: credits must be calculated per activity based on session type and duration, attendance must be verified through badge scans, QR code check-ins, or time-stamped digital logins, and certificates must be generated with the correct credit amounts, accreditation body codes, and compliance information attached. Audit trails also need to be maintained for bodies such as ACCME, EACCME, and CECBC, and attendees generally expect long-term access to their earned credit transcripts long after the event has ended. Without dedicated software to manage this, the burden falls squarely on staff, and the compliance risk grows accordingly.

Compliance and Data Security

Healthcare data carries a sensitivity that few other industries match, and medical congresses must satisfy a layered set of regulatory standards as a result, including HIPAA for attendees based in the United States, GDPR for European participants, and a range of local healthcare privacy laws elsewhere. Any platform entrusted with this kind of data needs audited security practices, clearly documented data deletion policies, and in many cases a signed Business Associate Agreement before an organization should even consider moving forward.

These four pillars, taken together, explain why a platform built for trade shows or corporate retreats tends to buckle under the specific demands of a scientific congress. The comparison below makes the gap between generalpurpose tools and purpose-built ones easier to see at a glance.

Platform Comparison at a Glance

Platform	Abstract Mgmt	CME Support	Mobile App	Hybrid Events
Dryfta	★★★★★	★★★★★	★★★★★	★★★★★
Cvent	★★★	★★★	★★★★	★★★★
Whova	★★	★★	★★★★★	★★★★
EventMobi	★★	★★	★★★★★	★★★★
Oxford Abstracts	★★★★★	★★★	★★★	★★★
Ex Ordo	★★★★	★★	★★★	★★★

Platform Profiles

In this section, we’re placing the magnifier a lot closer and assessing the details of the platforms tabulated previously. These 6 platforms are vying against one another in the race to be among the best conference platforms for medical congresses in 2026. Before we see who takes the trophy home, let’s lay their winning tracks down. 

Dryfta

Best for: Academic conferences, medical congresses, scientific associations, research societies.

Dryfta stands apart from the rest of this list because it was conceived from the outset for medical and scientific events rather than adapted toward them later, and that origin shows clearly throughout its feature set. It was built by people who had themselves organized research congresses and understood firsthand where the pain points tend to surface. Its abstract management system reflects that experience, since it supports multiple submission types, configurable review workflows with custom scoring rubrics, blind peer review backed by reviewer assignment algorithms, automatic duplicate detection, and conditional acceptance paired with structured revision requests. Even when a congress accumulates more than 10,000 abstracts, the system continues to perform without strain.

Beyond the submission process itself, Dryfta offers a peer review infrastructure that organizers can shape in considerable depth, since multiple review rounds, expertise-based reviewer assignment, automated reminders, reviewer quotas, and conflict-of-interest flagging all come built in. The platform extends further still into flexible registration, with support for early-bird pricing, group discounts, and dynamic pricing rules, and it gives speakers a dedicated portal where they can manage their own profiles, upload presentations, and receive scheduling and technical information directly. Organizations that depend on membership structures will also find dedicated tools for member versus non-member pricing alongside a searchable member directory. A full sponsorship module covers everything from sponsor tiers and logo placement to booth management, lead capture, and post-event reporting, while a built-in website builder lets organizers produce a professional congress site without writing a line of code. Hybrid functionality rounds out the offering through streaming integration, virtual networking spaces, and on-demand access to recorded content.

None of this comes without tradeoffs, since the depth

Dryfta offers in scientific event management introduces more complexity than organizations needing only basic tools might want to take on, and its pricing reflects that specialized functionality rather than competing on cost alone. It also leans more naturally toward academic and research contexts than toward commercial healthcare events. Even so, it tends to suit medical associations planning congresses of 500 or more attendees, research societies operating under rigorous peer-review requirements, and international conferences that need multiple language support built in from the start.

Cvent

Best for: Large-scale events, enterprise organizations, those already operating in the Cvent ecosystem.

Cvent occupies a different position entirely, having built its reputation as the established enterprise platform used widely by Fortune 500 companies and major institutions. For medical congresses specifically, it brings genuine scalability and strong registration features to the table, though it generally requires considerable customization before it can support scientific workflows in any meaningful way. Where the platform performs well, it performs very well, offering proven infrastructure for events drawing more than 100,000 attendees, backed by uptime guarantees and dedicated support staff. Its registration tools allow for highly customizable business logic and flexible pricing structures, and its integrations extend across CRM systems, accounting software, email marketing platforms, and hotel management tools. Reporting is comprehensive as well, spanning conversion funnels, session popularity, sponsor performance, and attendee demographics, and the platform’s video streaming and virtual booth capabilities give it real strength in hybrid formats.

The shortfalls become apparent once the focus shifts toward the scientific side of a congress. Abstract management is fairly basic out of the box and demands significant customization before it can meet medicalstandard peer review expectations, and CME tracking is limited natively, which means organizers must usually rely on third-party integrations to fill the gap. The attendee experience, while functional, can feel somewhat heavy, since navigation complexity sometimes works against engagement rather than for it. Implementation timelines tend to run from three to six months, which contrasts sharply with the four to eight weeks that more specialized platforms typically require.

Cvent suits large hospital systems and healthcare networks running major congresses particularly well, and it remains a sensible choice for enterprise organizations already committed to its broader ecosystem.

Whova

Best for: Events prioritizing attendee engagement, networking, and mobile-first experiences.

Whova has earned its reputation primarily through its mobile app and the attendee engagement tools built around it, and medical congresses that adopt it tend to report genuinely high satisfaction with the day-to-day delegate experience. The app itself is intuitive, offering real-time schedule updates, offline access, and a design that feels engaging rather than purely functional. Its networking features extend to attendee matching based on shared interests and profession, one-on-one meeting scheduling, and social feeds, while live polling, Q&A functionality, and real-time schedule notifications round out an already strong experience.

That strength does not extend evenly across the platform, however, since the limitations become significant once a congress leans heavily on research. Abstract submission is treated more as basic form collection than as a true peerreview workflow, CME tracking remains minimal, and speaker portals offer little depth. For congresses where research dissemination sits at the center of the event’s purpose, Whova is simply not built to carry that weight. It fits more naturally with specialty associations focused on networking, clinical conferences that forgo formal research presentations, and events where delegate engagement itself is the primary measure of success.

EventMobi

Best for: Tech-forward events, mobile-priority audiences, organizations wanting a premium app experience alongside another primary platform.

EventMobi has built its identity around event applications rather than around full event management, and its app reflects that focus through push notifications, live updates, exhibitor information, and interactive features like gamification, badges, and leaderboards. Booth management and lead capture tools work effectively within this scope as well. Since EventMobi functions primarily as an app layer rather than a complete platform, it does not include registration, abstract management, or the deeper logistical tools that a medical congress requires. As a result, it tends to work best as a complementary addition layered on top of a primary platform rather than as a standalone solution for organizers running scientific events.

Oxford Abstracts

Best for: Academic conferences, research symposiums, events where abstract workflows are the primary concern.

Oxford Abstracts was designed specifically with academic and research conferences in mind, and its abstract management reflects that purpose clearly through comprehensive submission management, flexible review workflows, and dependable decision-making tools. It supports both single and double-blind peer review, accommodates multiple review rounds, and handles conditional acceptance without difficulty, all while remaining competitively priced for academic institutions. The tradeoffs, however, are just as clear as the strengths, since registration features stay basic, CME tracking remains limited, attendee engagement and mobile tools are minimal, and sponsorship management is kept fairly simple, with hybrid event capabilities restricted as well. The platform tends to suit research symposiums where peer review is essentially the entire point, academic medical conferences working within tight budgets, and events that have no particular need for extensive registration customization or commercial features.

Ex Ordo

Best for: Research conferences, scientific societies, submission-focused events.

Ex Ordo centers its design around submission management and author communication, and the experience it offers authors is clean enough to noticeably reduce friction throughout the process. Communication tools that guide authors from submission through to acceptance remain consistently strong, review models stay flexible, and pricing tends to favor universities and research institutions specifically. As with Oxford Abstracts, though, the feature set narrows considerably once attention moves beyond abstract management, since registration stays basic, native CME tracking does not exist, mobile experience remains limited, and sponsorship and networking tools offer little depth. Ex Ordo tends to suit medical research conferences where abstract selection dominates the agenda, university-hosted symposiums, and international research meetings with straightforward registration needs.

Choosing among these platforms becomes considerably easier once the type of event is clearly defined, since the right fit tends to follow naturally from the congress’s scale and purpose.

Best Platforms by Medical Event Type

The best conference platforms for medical congresses also very by the type of your event. This is further subject to variation based on factors like the size of your audience or even the amount of personalization your event will need. If you’re down for a mediocre show, almost any abstract management software in the market will help. But if you are dreaming of a medical conference like none other, if you’re someone who is consistently raising the bars for yourself and your team, this section is a must-read.

Large International Medical Congresses (2,000plus Attendees)

Events at this scale tend to involve multiple simultaneous sessions spread across venues, hundreds of international speakers, thousands of attendees with varied registration needs, and sponsorship arrangements substantial enough to shape the event’s entire budget. Dryfta stands as the primary choice here, given its proven performance at congresses drawing 5,000 or more attendees, while Cvent remains a reasonable alternative for organizations already embedded in its ecosystem, provided abstract management is customized separately. Organizers at this scale should look specifically for infrastructure that holds up under concurrent user loads, international payment processing with multi-currency support, genuine multilingual capability, strong tools for managing speakers, sponsors, and sessions together, and integrated video streaming paired with post-event on-demand access.

Specialty Medical Associations (300 to 800 Attendees)

Specialty societies working in fields such as cardiology, oncology, and gastroenterology tend to run annual congresses built around well-established structures, typically combining abstract submissions, specialtyfocused tracks, and tight-knit member communities. Dryfta again serves as the primary recommendation, since it was built with association events specifically in mind and includes member pricing alongside member directory features, while Oxford Abstracts paired with a separate, simpler registration tool offers a workable alternative.

Research Symposiums (100 to 500 Attendees)

Symposiums of this kind tend to prioritize paper presentations and peer discussion well above commercial activity, and they typically run shorter, more specialized programs on tighter budgets than larger congresses allow. Oxford Abstracts and Ex Ordo both serve as primary choices here, since each was built around research submission workflows from the ground up, while Dryfta remains a worthwhile alternative for organizers who also need a stronger event website, registration system, and sponsorship support alongside their abstract management.

CME-Focused Conferences (Any Size)

Any event offering continuing education credits needs reliable CME tracking, a requirement that applies just as much to clinical update symposiums and healthcare provider training sessions as it does to most medical association conferences generally. Dryfta leads the recommendations in this category because of its native CME tracking, credit allocation, and certificate generation, while any other platform paired with a third-party CME addon such as MedCom or AXIS offers a workable alternative. Whatever system is chosen still needs to cover automated attendance verification, per-session credit calculation, accreditation body compliance, certificate distribution, and long-term transcript access for attendees who return for their records months or years later.

Hybrid Medical Congresses (Any Size)

Hybrid formats combining in-person and virtual attendance have become close to standard at this point, and most medical congresses now need to manage in-room delegates, virtual attendees, remote speakers, and ondemand replay within a single coordinated system. Dryfta remains the primary recommendation given its integrated streaming, virtual networking, and on-demand content, while Cvent paired with a streaming integration such as Zoom serves as a capable alternative.

Once the event type points toward a shortlist, a handful of practical questions can narrow the decision even further.

How to Choose the Right Platform for Your Medical Congress

How many attendees do you expect?

Abstracts, Ex Ordo, or a basic Dryfta setup suit as smaller-scale medical conference softwares. Those between 300 and 1,000 generally do well with Dryfta or Cvent, while events scaling from 1,000 to 5,000 attendees usually call for a fuller feature deployment on either platform. Beyond 5,000 attendees, Dryfta tends to suit research-focused congresses best, while Cvent remains the stronger enterprise option.

Do you require abstract submissions and peer review?

If sophisticated review workflows are necessary, Dryfta, Oxford Abstracts, or Ex Ordo are the platforms worth considering. If only basic submission forms are needed, Cvent or Whova can manage that adequately, and if abstracts are not part of the picture at all, attention should shift entirely toward registration and attendee engagement features instead.

Do you need CME tracking and credit allocation?

If so, Dryfta offers native support, while any other platform can be paired with a third-party CME system to achieve similar results. If CME tracking is not required, this consideration falls away entirely.

Will your event be hybrid?

If it will, Dryfta offers the strongest integrated support, while Cvent paired with a separate streaming tool serves as a capable alternative. If not, this factor simply does not weigh on the decision.

How many staff members will manage the event?

Teams of one or two tend to do best with Dryfta or Oxford Abstracts, both of which were designed with lean operations in mind. Teams of three to five generally find success with Cvent, Dryfta, or Whova, distributing tasks by function, while teams of five or more tend to find that most platforms work reasonably well at that level of resourcing.

Taken together, these answers tend to collapse into a few clear patterns. Abstract management paired with CME requirements and an attendee count between 500 and

5,000, especially in a hybrid format, points toward Dryfta.

Enterprise scale combined with an existing Cvent deployment, more than 5,000 attendees, and only basic abstract needs points toward Cvent instead. A research focus paired with a tight budget, 100 to 300 attendees, and a strong peer-review requirement points toward Oxford Abstracts or Ex Ordo, while a small event built around engagement and networking points toward Whova, and an organization already settled on another platform that simply wants a premium mobile layer should look toward EventMobi as a complementary addition.

Even with the right platform identified on paper, organizers tend to run into a handful of avoidable mistakes during implementation, and it is worth naming them directly.

Common Mistakes Medical Congress Organizers Make When Selecting Software

• Choosing based on price alone. The cheapest platform on the market rarely turns out to be the cheapest option once implementation begins, since a platform lacking proper abstract management forces staff to track peer reviews by hand, copy feedback into individual emails, and manage rejections one at a time. At scale, this adds up to hundreds of extra staff hours, and a platform costing 20,000 dollars a year that saves 500 hours of staff time will ultimately cost less than a 5,000 dollar platform that generates 800 hours of additional work.
• Ignoring abstract management requirements. Organizers consistently underestimate how complex abstract management really is, often choosing a general platform only to discover mid-submission season that it cannot support blind peer review, reviewer assignment, or conditional acceptance. The fix is always the same regardless of when the problem surfaces, since the full abstract workflow should be tested before any contract is signed, which means submitting test abstracts, assigning reviewers, and running through the complete review process from start to finish.
• Overlooking reviewer workflows. An abstract system is only as strong as the experience it offers reviewers, and review quality tends to suffer whenever reviewers cannot access abstracts on mobile devices, cannot interpret scoring rubrics clearly, or miss deadlines because reminder emails fail to function properly. The reviewer experience deserves testing with actual reviewers rather than internal staff alone, since the two groups rarely encounter the same friction points.
• Neglecting sponsor management. A platform may handle registration and abstracts well while still creating real problems for sponsors, since sponsors who cannot access their own logo placements, who do not learn their booth numbers until weeks before the event, or who cannot capture leads during the congress itself tend to report poor returns and grow reluctant to return the following year. Sponsorship needs should be defined upfront, with verification that the chosen platform can actually support them.
• Not testing the attendee experience. Backend tools built for organizers often look considerably stronger than the front-end experience delegates actually encounter, which is why people uninvolved in setup should walk through the complete attendee journey before launch, registering, downloading the app, locating sessions, accessing presentations, and submitting questions just as a real attendee would. Whatever friction they encounter along the way is friction the actual attendees will hit as well.

These missteps tend to repeat across organizations precisely because the underlying technology keeps shifting, and it helps to look ahead at where that technology seems to be heading next.

Future Trends in Medical Congress Technology

AI-powered abstract screening. Machine learning tools are beginning to pre-screen abstracts for quality markers such as completeness, plagiarism, and relevance to scope before human reviewers ever see them, and for conferences managing more than 5,000 submissions, this could reduce review time by 20 to 30 percent while freeing reviewers to focus on scientific content rather than formatting errors. Advanced implementations are arriving across 2026 and 2027, with wider adoption expected by 2028.

Personalized session recommendations. Algorithms are steadily improving at recommending sessions based on attendee profiles, past participation, and the choices made by similar delegates, which amounts to a curated conference schedule rather than a static printed program. Basic versions of this already exist, and the underlying technology continues to mature as 2026 progresses.

Advanced analytics and predictive insights. Platforms are moving well beyond simple attendance counts toward engagement scoring, network analysis, sponsor ROI predictions, and churn models designed to identify attendees unlikely to return. These tools are intended to support sharper decisions around session scheduling, speaker selection, and pricing strategy, and the expectation is that they become standard offerings by 2027.

Smart networking and AI matchmaking. AI matching is moving past shared job titles toward connecting attendees based on complementary research interests and professional goals, and for research-focused congresses where collaboration sits at the core of the event’s purpose, this shift could meaningfully improve the quality of delegate interactions. Early implementations are already visible across 2026.

Automated CME tracking. The shift toward automated attendance tracking through badge scanning, QR codes, and digital login timestamps continues to accelerate, and the practical result is that attendees receive certificates immediately after completing sessions rather than waiting weeks, organizers eliminate manual entry errors, and compliance auditing becomes effectively automatic. This is becoming standard practice across 2026 and 2027.

Even as these trends continue to unfold, certain practical questions keep recurring among organizers evaluating their options today.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the best platform for medical congresses?

No single answer applies universally, since the right choice depends entirely on an event’s specific requirements. That said, Dryfta consistently performs best for organizations needing abstract management, CME tracking, speaker management, and sponsorship tools brought together within one integrated platform. Cvent remains the right answer for organizations already operating within an enterprise ecosystem and willing to customize for scientific workflows, while Oxford Abstracts and Ex Ordo offer strong options for research-focused events where peer review sits at the center of the concern.

What software manages medical conference abstracts?

Dryfta, Oxford Abstracts, and Ex Ordo were built specifically for this purpose. General event platforms such as Cvent and Eventbrite can capture abstract submissions but lack the sophisticated peer-review workflows that medical congresses tend to require, and for research-only events without complex registration needs, Overleaf and SciencesConf are also worth considering.

Can conference platforms track CME credits?

Some can, and others simply cannot. Dryfta includes native CME credit allocation, attendance verification, and certificate generation, while Cvent, Whova, and similar platforms lack this natively but can integrate with thirdparty CME systems such as AXIS, MedCom, or Acclaim. Specific CME capabilities should always be verified directly before any platform is selected.

What is the best platform for hybrid medical events?

Dryfta provides the most integrated hybrid support through streaming, virtual networking spaces, on-demand content, and unified registration working together. Cvent supports hybrid events capably as well, though it requires a separate streaming integration, and Whova handles attendee engagement effectively within hybrid formats specifically. The virtual experience is worth testing directly with each platform before any final decision is made.

How much does medical conference software cost?

Basic platforms such as Eventbrite and Splash tend to run between 500 and 5,000 dollars per year, though with limited features attached. Specialized platforms like Oxford Abstracts and Ex Ordo typically range from 5,000 to 15,000 dollars annually depending on attendee volume, while midmarket options such as Dryfta start at 1,499 dollars per year for a typical congress, covering abstracts, registration, speaker management, and CME together. Enterprise platforms like Cvent run anywhere from 30,000 to more than 150,000 dollars per year depending on scale and customization, and since most platforms apply tiered pricing based on attendee count, a 1,000-person congress will generally cost less than a 5,000-person event running on the same system.

Can medical conference platforms support peer review?

They can, though capability varies considerably across the market. Dryfta, Oxford Abstracts, and Ex Ordo all offer sophisticated built-in peer-review systems supporting blind review, multiple rounds, reviewer assignment, and custom scoring rubrics, while general platforms such as Cvent and Whova lack this functionality altogether. If peer review is a genuine requirement, the wiser path is to select a platform where it is native from the start rather than attempting to bolt it on afterward.

The Bottom Line

Medical congresses operate under conditions that standard events simply do not face, requiring sophisticated abstract management built around peer review, CME tracking to satisfy regulatory compliance, complex speaker coordination across specialties and time zones, and sponsorship tools capable of generating real revenue. Managing all of this manually stops being practical the moment an event reaches any meaningful scale.

The strongest platforms bring these capabilities together in one place, sparing organizers from manually bridging gaps between disconnected systems and sparing attendees from having to juggle multiple separate tools just to attend a single event. Dryfta emerges as the strongest all-around choice for medical associations and congresses precisely because it was built specifically for medical and scientific events, combining abstract management and peer review with registration, speaker management, CME tracking, sponsorship tools, and attendee engagement within a single integrated system. Cvent remains a viable option for organizations with existing deployments or genuine enterprise-scale needs, though it still requires customization before it can properly support scientific workflows. For smaller research-focused events where abstract workflows matter more than commercial elements, Oxford Abstracts and Ex Ordo stand out as specialized, cost-effective choices, while Whova remains difficult to match for events where attendee engagement and networking carry the most weight.

Ultimately, the platform that you choose will shape the very experience that your speakers, attendees, reviewers, and sponsors all carry away from the event. The verdict on the best conference platforms for medical congresses has be explored rigorously in this article. Now it is up to you and your team to either choose relevance or fade into oblivion. To become part of organizations running their events using Dryfta’s medical association event software and abstract management software, sign up for a free demo here.