See the level of evidence behind a health claim and get a critical reading of the article that reaches you. With the source in hand and without pushing any diet.
Every answer states the level of evidence and the source — traceable to the article and the excerpt. No guesswork, no made-up numbers.
A good health decision rests on three pillars:
We strengthen the first pillar. The other two belong to the health professional and to the person in their care, and the decision stays with them. The tool gives clinical work a foundation, it does not replace it.
The process uses automation to organise and speed up the work — but critical appraisal does not end in an automated answer. What earns trust here is the method, plus the eye and experience of whoever reviews it.
Pick a statement and see the answer, the strength of the evidence and its firmness.
Before you believe the headline, see how the study was done.
Searching by title is approximate: an article that is here may not show up because of a difference in spelling or in language. With the DOI or the PMID, the answer is exact.
The essentials for understanding study designs, statistics, biases and the strength of evidence.
Onde o projeto está agora — e o que pede atenção.
How each answer here is built — and why you can trust it.
We weigh what is for and what is against with the same rigor — symmetrical skepticism. We don’t root for low-carb, for fasting or for any banner. We show what good evidence supports, even when that goes against what we would have liked.
Each conclusion points to the article, the excerpt that supports it and the level of evidence. Where there is no supporting excerpt, we say “not verifiable” — never a guess. It’s the standard of a serious consultation: no made-up numbers or citations.
To judge a study, we use internationally validated critical-appraisal instruments — RoB 2 (risk of bias in trials), AMSTAR 2 (quality of reviews) and GRADE (certainty of evidence) —, the same ones taught in evidence-based practice schools. The difference is that here they come already applied: you see the result in plain language — the level of evidence and why.
In Brazil, much of the nutrition information is sold as certainty: the diet that works, the protocol, the supplement. What was missing was a place that showed, in plain language and without rooting for any side, what good evidence actually says. That is what this project tries to be.
What any visitor reads without paying, and what the subscription adds. The appraisal is the same for both: the badge, the certainty and the limitation you read for free are exactly the subscriber's. What changes is how much you read and what you can do with it.
Access is the same on both. What changes is how you pay — and the yearly plan costs less.
| Feature | Visitor | Subscriber |
|---|---|---|
| Questions and verdicts, with badge, certainty and firmness | Yes | Yes |
| How many articles support each answer | Yes | Yes |
| The yardstick: how each answer is judged | Not included | Yes |
| Full appraisal of each article | Not included | Yes |
| Search the collection by DOI, PMID or title | Not included | Yes |
| Article appraisal on request | Not included | |
| Turnaround for each appraisal | Not included | |
| Critical appraisal mini-course | First module | All modules |
| Glossary of terms | In verdicts and the free module | Yes |
| Export the appraisal | Not included | Yes |
We have no sponsor, no advertising and no commission on supplement sales. The subscription is the only revenue — and that is why an answer can go against whoever is selling, including when it goes against what we would like to be true.