Extract one claim you can actually check
Copy a short precise claim into a private note and keep the URL, publisher and date. Separate a claim about an ingredient from one about a named product, dose, population or condition. A phrase such as supports wellness may not say what measurable result is promised. A scientific-sounding name, impressive percentage or reference to unnamed researchers is a lead to investigate, not evidence by itself.
Follow the citation to the actual source
Look for the original study, regulator notice or relevant public-health guidance. Check that the linked page really concerns the same product and claim. Record whether you found a study, an expert explanation, an advertisement or merely another page repeating the headline. If the citation cannot be found, say not located; do not invent the journal, authors or result. Preserve the original date rather than making an old claim current by changing its year.
Read what kind of evidence it is
Record who or what was studied, what comparison was made and what outcome was measured. A laboratory observation, observational association and clinical trial answer different questions. A small or specific study does not automatically establish a result for every person. Ask what was not tested. Seek an appropriately qualified professional’s interpretation when the answer affects health; this sheet does not teach you to diagnose a condition or select a treatment.
Keep research and permission distinct
A published paper or trial listing is not the same thing as regulatory approval for a particular product and use. FDA’s dated regenerative-medicine warning illustrates that distinction and warns about unapproved products. Use the current regulator for the actual product and jurisdiction; the 2021 warning is not a complete 2026 list of approved therapies. Do not replace prescribed care, change a dose or attempt a procedure on the strength of a marketing claim.
Read the drawing as text
Exact product and use must connect to the claim, relevant evidence and the actual regulator record. A supplied research citation does not fill a missing approval link.
Work through an example
A fictional advertisement says a stem-cell product is approved because a related therapy appeared in a research paper. The reader records the paper as research and asks for the exact product, intended use and regulator record. Approval remains unverified. The example does not declare every cell therapy ineffective or recommend any treatment; it identifies a missing link in the evidence.
Illustrative example; figures, people and organisations in the worked record are fictional.
The example record
Product and use
- What was found
- Not identified precisely
- Conclusion permitted
- Ask for exact identifiers
Paper
- What was found
- Research citation supplied
- Conclusion permitted
- Read its actual question
Regulatory approval
- What was found
- No matching record supplied
- Conclusion permitted
- Still unverified
Personal decision
- What was found
- Outside this worksheet
- Conclusion permitted
- Qualified advice required
Download blank worksheet (.csv) ↗Download worked example (.csv) ↗
Keep your own record
Use the result within its scope
A useful note can end with uncertainty. Absence of a citation does not authorise a diagnosis, while the presence of one does not settle clinical suitability. Keep both limits visible when sharing an explanation.
Reference sources
Earlier articles on this subject
- How Does A Bacteria Cause Gum Disease? ↗ — 2022-09-01, Maria Baldwin.
- Everything You Need To Know About Regenerative Medicine ↗ — 2022-09-21, Maria Baldwin.
- Get Stem Cell Therapy to Stop Aging ↗ — 2021-10-21, Maria Baldwin.