Evidence-Based Medicine

Clinical trial methodology,
evaluated and delivered.

Arbor evaluates published clinical trials against the Ten Major Considerations framework — and sends clear, structured reports straight to your inbox. Free, curated, and independent.

Evaluation archive

Past evaluations

Browse our library of evaluated clinical trials. Each report applies the full Ten Major Considerations framework.

Our framework

How we evaluate trials

Every evaluation Arbor publishes applies the same standardized framework drawn from Evidence-Based Medicine principles.

The Ten Major Considerations

Each trial is assessed across ten methodological criteria. We assign a Strength or Limitation verdict to each, with a brief justification drawn directly from the trial's reported methods and results.

  1. Statistical power: Was the study adequately powered to detect a clinically meaningful effect (≥80% power)?
  2. Dosage / treatment regimen: Was the intervention dose or protocol appropriate and consistent with clinical practice?
  3. Study duration: Was the follow-up period long enough to observe the expected treatment effect?
  4. Inclusion criteria: Were patients enrolled in a way that reflects the intended target population?
  5. Exclusion criteria: Were exclusions clinically justified and not overly restrictive?
  6. Blinding: Were patients, clinicians, and outcome assessors blinded where feasible?
  7. Randomization: Did randomization produce comparable groups at baseline across key characteristics?
  8. Biostatistical methods: Were the statistical tests appropriate for the study design and outcome data type?
  9. Outcome measures: Were primary and secondary outcomes standard, validated, and pre-specified?
  10. Author conclusions: Are the authors' conclusions supported by the reported data?

Level of Evidence

LevelEvidence type
IProperly designed RCT, or systematic review / meta-analysis of RCTs
IIWell-designed RCT with some weaknesses, or non-randomized controlled study
IIINon-randomized, non-controlled prospective study (e.g., cohort)
IVRetrospective study (e.g., case-control)
VExpert opinion, case series, or case report

Grade of Recommendation

GradeBasis
AConsistent, good-quality patient-oriented evidence (Level I)
BInconsistent or limited-quality evidence (Level II–III)
CConsensus, usual practice, or case-series evidence (Level IV–V)

Community

Request an evaluation

Have a trial you'd like us to evaluate? Submit it below and we'll consider it for an upcoming issue.