Expert Evidence-Strength Validation

An independent expert calibration of a medical-evidence assessment tool. You'll judge a set of published papers. One sitting; progress is saved in this browser if you pause.

What you'll do

Part 1 — Evidence strength: for each paper, rate how strong/trustworthy the research evidence is (study design, rigour, sample size, risk of bias) on 0–100, plus your confidence.
Part 2 — Clinical importance: then, separately, rate how important/useful each paper is for practice on 0–100. (These are deliberately different — a rigorous study of a trivial question is high-strength/low-importance; a guideline may be lower-strength but high-importance.)
Part 3 — A few quick head-to-head comparisons.

Judge evidence strength on its own merits — not the journal, the topic's popularity, or whether you agree with the conclusion. Work independently; please don't confer with other reviewers. You are not being matched to a "right" answer.

Consent & data

Voluntary; stop anytime. Ratings are used only to validate the tool. No patient data (public abstracts only). At the end you download a small file and email it back — nothing is transmitted automatically.

Full name *

Email *

Specialty / field *

Years research experience

Formal GRADE / EBM methods training?

Any relationship to this tool / TT Technologies? (COI)

I have read the above and consent to participate. *

Quick calibration (not scored)

Use this 0–100 evidence-strength guide throughout. Drag the slider to roughly where you'd place a large, well-conducted meta-analysis of RCTs (it should land high, ~90), then click Start.

0–100 strength: 90–100 definitive (MA/SR of RCTs, multiple large rigorous RCTs) · 70–89 strong (good RCT / solid SR) · 50–69 moderate (smaller RCT, strong observational, mixed SR) · 30–49 limited (confounded observational, narrative review) · 10–29 weak (case report, editorial, opinion) · 0–9 negligible.

Practice:50

Part 1 — Evidence strength (0–100): 90–100 definitive · 70–89 strong · 50–69 moderate · 30–49 limited · 10–29 weak · 0–9 negligible. Judge the evidence, not the importance.

Part 1 of 3 — Evidence strength

Part 2 of 3 — Clinical importance

Now rate how important/useful for clinical practice each paper is (0 = not, 100 = highly), independent of how rigorous it is.

Part 3 of 3 — Head-to-head (which is STRONGER evidence?)

For each pair, pick the paper whose evidence you trust more. (Optional but valued.)

✓ Thank you

Your responses downloaded as a file. Please email it back to the study lead. If it didn't download, use the buttons.

File:

consent