We don’t sell a diet
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.
Evidence without spin
Not every study that makes headlines holds up.
Here you find out which ones do, and how far. We take nutrition myths one by one: where the evidence ends and the extrapolation begins.
- articles reviewed
- myths with a closed verdict
From article or myth to answer, in three steps
- You bring the article or the claim Search for the article in our base, pick a myth from the list, or bring the claim you heard.
- We apply the international yardstick the study design calls for We measure risk of bias domain by domain and the strength of the evidence, with the same rigor for what’s for and for what’s against.
- You get the appraisal of the article and of the myth The methodological assessment in an appraisal that explains each step, and the myth’s answer in a card with the strength of the evidence and the studies behind it.
A real example
Before trusting the method, read what we have already published
Two pieces open to everyone, one click away: an article appraised in full and a myth with a closed verdict.
How much a study's result can be trusted
Every appraisal receives its own badge, from a methodology that is ours: it brings the recognised critical-appraisal tools into a single judgement — the study design, the quality of its conduct and how well it applies to practice.
Does the study's result reflect reality?
- Highvery likely
- Moderatelikely, with caveats
- Limitedmay be quite different
- Fragilevery uncertain
Evidence is one of the three legs of the decision
A good health decision rests on three pillars:
- Scientific evidence — the best and most current research on what works and what doesn’t. This is where we work.
- Clinical expertise — the professional’s knowledge, experience and technical judgment.
- Patient values — each person’s life context, needs and choices.
The tool gives clinical work a foundation, it does not replace it.
Evidence, not spin
In Brazil, much of the information about nutrition and health 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.
The judgement is human; the tooling speeds it up
The critical reading of each study follows the best methods available, applied article by article. Automation organises and speeds up the work around it, but what a study proves is always decided by a person.
- Validated yardsticks, applied case by case RoB 2, AMSTAR 2, GRADE and others applied to the article, not merely cited.
- Human check before publishing No appraisal enters the base without a person reading it.
- Retroactive review when the method changes A new criterion sends already published appraisals back to the table.
What does good evidence actually say?
Filter or search for the claim you have heard around, and open the card to see the answer.
Detailed analyses are shown in Portuguese.
Understand how reliable a study is
Detailed analyses are shown in Portuguese.
Already have the DOI or PMID?iThe DOI is the article’s unique code (e.g. 10.1056/NEJMoa2032183). It is usually on the first page of the PDF or on the article’s page on the journal site. The PMID is the equivalent number in PubMed.
Or search by the article title
A sample open to everyone. The plan opens the whole collection.
Detailed analyses are shown in Portuguese.
Learn to read a scientific paper
The essentials for understanding study designs, statistics, biases and the strength of evidence.
The mini-course is shown in Portuguese.
Painel do projeto
Onde o projeto está agora, e o que pede atenção.
Evidence without spin
How each answer here is built, and why you can trust it.
The same yardsticks used worldwide
To judge a study, we use internationally validated critical-appraisal instruments, the same ones taught in evidence-based practice schools. Every design has its own yardstick: RoB 2 for trials, AMSTAR 2 for reviews, ROBINS-I and ROBINS-E for studies without randomization, GRADE for the certainty of the body of evidence, among others, depending on what the article calls for. When the study is observational — nobody was randomized, only observed — the Bradford Hill criteria come in as well, helping to judge whether an association may be a cause: whether the exposure came before the outcome, whether more exposure brings more effect, and whether independent findings point the same way. The difference is that here they come already applied: you see the result in plain language, the level of evidence and why.
What the subscription opens
Every appraisal in the base, every verdict with the studies behind each answer, and search across the collection by DOI, PMID or title.
Two ways to subscribe
Monthly or yearly, with the same access. On the yearly plan, the price per month is lower.
Monthly
- Billed month to month
- Cancel whenever you want
Yearly
- 12 months up front
| Feature | Visitor | With a free account | Subscriber |
|---|---|---|---|
| Full appraisal of each article | Not included | Not included | Yes |
| Search the collection by DOI, PMID or title | Not included | Not included | Yes |
| Article appraisal on request* | Not included | Not included | |
| Critical appraisal mini-course (free with an account) | First module | All modules | All modules |
Single appraisal
The same appraisal for everyone
The appraisal is the same for everyone: the badge, the certainty and the limitation you read for free are exactly the subscriber's. What changes is how much you read.