# Scientific Claim Review

Evaluate a scientific claim against study design, population, measures, evidence strength, uncertainty, relevance, replication, and risk of overstatement.

## Usage note

Use this worksheet to support editorial review, not to replace qualified scientific, medical, statistical, or regulatory expertise. Escalate claims that could influence health, safety, treatment, or public policy.

## How to use this template

1. Convert the proposed sentence into a precise population, exposure, comparison, outcome, and claim type.
2. Read the full primary study, protocol, corrections, and relevant evidence synthesis when available.
3. Evaluate design, measures, analysis, effect magnitude, uncertainty, bias, funding, and applicability.
4. Compare the wording with what the evidence directly establishes and revise overstatement.
5. Record unresolved questions, expert review, final language, and a recheck trigger.

## Blank template

### Claim and consequence

- **Claim as drafted:** [Copy exact sentence]
- **Claim type:** [Description / Association / Cause / Prediction / Mechanism / Safety / Effect]
- **Population implied:** [Enter]
- **Exposure or intervention:** [Enter]
- **Comparison:** [Enter]
- **Outcome and period:** [Enter]
- **Reader consequence if wrong:** [Low / Medium / High]
- **Required specialist:** [Role/name]

### Study record

- **Citation, identifier, and version:** [Enter]
- **Study design and setting:** [Enter]
- **Participants or material studied:** [Sample, inclusion, exclusions]
- **Exposure/intervention and comparator:** [Enter]
- **Primary and secondary outcomes:** [Enter]
- **Recruitment, allocation, and blinding:** [Describe]
- **Attrition and missing data:** [Describe]
- **Funding and conflicts:** [Record]
- **Protocol, data, correction, or retraction check:** [Record]

### Result interpretation

- **Effect size and units:** [Enter]
- **Absolute values and denominator:** [Enter]
- **Uncertainty interval:** [Enter]
- **Analysis limitations:** [Confounding, multiple tests, subgroup, other]
- **Practical or clinical relevance:** [Explain cautiously]
- **Applicability to claimed population:** [Strong / Partial / Weak and why]
- **Replication or synthesis:** [Describe]
- **What the study does not establish:** [List]

### Editorial decision

- [ ] The full study, not only an abstract or release, was reviewed.
- [ ] Association and causation are distinguished.
- [ ] Effect magnitude, denominator, and period are not hidden.
- [ ] Animal, laboratory, surrogate, and human outcomes are distinguished.
- [ ] Uncertainty and important limitations appear near the claim.
- **Decision:** [Keep / Qualify / Rewrite / Remove / Escalate]
- **Final wording:** [Write]
- **Expert reviewer and date:** [Name, YYYY-MM-DD]
- **Recheck trigger:** [New review, replication, correction, guidance]