Was this studied in humans, animals, or cells?
Animal and laboratory findings do not replace human evidence.
Who participated, and are they relevant to the population of interest?
Check relevant characteristics rather than assuming universal applicability.
Was the study large enough for its question?
Sample size alone is not a complete quality assessment.
What was the comparison?
Read the design and alternatives, not just changes after use.
What was measured, and why does it matter to patients?
Name the measured outcome; do not substitute unstudied benefits.
How large was the difference?
Statistical significance does not always mean a large or practically important effect.
Was follow-up long enough?
Short-term evidence cannot answer every long-term question.
What limitations and risks were reported?
Separate observed findings from missing information; silence is not proof of safety.
Are findings consistent with other studies?
One study is rarely the final answer.
Who funded the work, and were relevant interests disclosed?
Use disclosure as context, not as the sole verdict on a study.
Use alongside the original paper; this is not a product safety score or treatment recommendation.
Educational information, not medical advice. No external medical reviewer.
Sources
- https://www.nccih.nih.gov/health/know-science/facts-health-news-stories/checklist-for-understanding-health-news-stories
- https://www.nccih.nih.gov/health/know-science/how-to-make-sense-of-a-scientific-journal-article/results
A PrimeCoreBio checklist, not a validated assessment or an NIH-endorsed tool.