Evaluation archive

Past evaluations

Browse our library of evaluated clinical trials. Each report applies the full Ten Major Considerations framework. Subscribe free to unlock the full archive.

3 of 10 evaluations shown

Subscribe free to unlock the full archive.

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.