How to read the evidence behind a treatment claim

Study types, ranked roughly

Systematic reviews and well-run randomised controlled trials carry the most weight. Cohort studies and case series can be informative but are more vulnerable to bias. Laboratory and animal studies establish plausibility, not clinical benefit. Testimonials are not evidence of effect.

• How many patients were studied, and for how long?
• Was there a control or comparison group?
• Were the outcome measures defined before the study started?
• Does the studied product match the product being offered?

The borrowed-citation problem

A common pattern in this market is a clinic page listing a row of real, peer-reviewed publications — none of which studied that clinic, its product or its protocol. The citations are genuine. The implied connection is not.

When you see a citation list, check three things: does the study use the same cell type or product, was it conducted by or with this provider, and does it report clinical outcomes rather than laboratory or animal findings. A list that fails all three is marketing arranged to look like evidence.

Who funded and who wrote it

Publications authored by a provider's own staff and funded by that provider are not independent evaluations of the provider. They may still be good science. The affiliation and funding statements are printed on the paper — read them.

What our Evidence Grade means

The Navigator Evidence Grade is a demo methodology summarising the maturity of published research for a treatment category. It is not a validated clinical scoring system, it is not a safety rating, and it says nothing about whether a specific procedure is right for you.