Check 1: What is the source hierarchy?
Systematic reviews and large, high-quality trials generally carry more weight than single small studies or anecdotal reports.
Check 2: Is the endpoint clinically meaningful?
Surrogate markers can be useful, but they should not be treated as guaranteed patient-important outcomes without strong validation.
Check 3: Are limitations explicit?
Credible evidence summaries state uncertainty, missing data, and potential bias. Omitted limitations are a warning signal.
Check 4: Was the effect replicated?
One positive study can be noise. Look for consistency across methods, populations, and independent teams.
Check 5: Who funded and interpreted?
Funding source does not invalidate results automatically, but it raises the need for protocol transparency and independent confirmation.
Check 6: Does the claim match the data scope?
Claims should stay within study boundaries. Overreach from narrow evidence to broad promises is common in marketing copy.
Practical takeaway
When language sounds absolute, increase scrutiny. Strong claims require proportionally strong and reproducible evidence.
Method clarity is the fastest path to separating plausible guidance from persuasive overstatement.