How We Review Evidence

The goal

Medicine changes because evidence changes. Our job is to translate medical research into understandable, cautious explanations — without overstating certainty.

What we look for first

When evaluating a topic, we typically start with:

Types of evidence (and what they're good for)

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs)

Good for testing whether an intervention causes an outcome — but still limited by who was studied, how long, and what outcomes were measured.

Observational studies

Useful for real-world patterns and long-term outcomes, but vulnerable to confounding (people who do X may differ from people who don't).

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses

Often strongest overall — if the included studies are high quality and comparable. A meta-analysis can amplify bias if it combines biased studies.

Mechanistic / early research

Helpful for understanding "how it might work," but rarely enough to justify confident claims about real-world outcomes.

Common interpretation pitfalls

We try to protect readers from:

How we communicate uncertainty

We use language intentionally:

What triggers an update

We revisit pages when:

A practical checklist for readers

When you see a health claim, ask:

Related

Editorial Standards