Start with the design
A randomised controlled trial with blinding gives the most reliable answer. A prospective cohort is weaker. A retrospective case series is weaker still. A collection of testimonials is not evidence at all.
Regenerative medicine literature contains a great deal of case series and relatively few well-powered randomised trials. That imbalance is worth knowing before reading any individual paper.
Find the comparison
Ask what the treatment was compared against. Many musculoskeletal conditions improve over time, so a single-arm study showing improvement has not demonstrated that the treatment caused it.
Procedural interventions produce large placebo effects, which is precisely why sham-controlled trials matter and why their absence is significant.
Check the endpoints
Was the primary outcome specified in advance? Was it met? Studies that miss their primary endpoint but report a positive secondary finding are common, and the abstract may not make that obvious.
Distinguish statistical significance from clinical meaningfulness. A statistically significant change smaller than the minimal clinically important difference is not something a patient would notice.
Note who paid
Funding source and author conflicts are disclosed for a reason. Industry funding does not invalidate a study, but it is context. Publication bias — positive results published more readily than negative — means the visible literature in any young field skews optimistic.
This article covers general science and published research. Whether any approach is appropriate for you is a clinical question, answered by a licensed provider through a good-faith exam.
Movera Wellness Institute. Medical services are provided by licensed California practitioners. Supervising physician: Dr. Arnold S. Kremer, DO (CA license #20A4242).