Assessing Credibility of Claims Flashcards
6 cards from real HSRT practice questions. Tap to flip, then mark Knew It or Still Learning — missed cards come back until you master them.
Read the first 6 Assessing Credibility of Claims flashcards as text
A health blogger claims that 'Vitamin C megadoses cure cancer, and thousands of patients have been healed.' Which credibility criterion is MOST undermined by this statement?
Answer: Verifiability — the claim lacks citations, study references, or reproducible evidence
A credible claim must be verifiable through reproducible, referenced evidence. 'Thousands healed' without citations is unverifiable anecdote.
A pharmaceutical company publishes a study showing its new antibiotic is 40% more effective than the standard of care. The study was funded exclusively by the company. Which credibility concern is MOST salient?
Answer: Conflict of interest — industry-funded studies have a documented tendency toward favorable outcomes
Industry funding is a well-documented source of bias that inflates positive findings. This represents a conflict of interest that compromises credibility.
A respiratory therapist hears a claim from a colleague: 'High-flow oxygen always prevents intubation in COPD exacerbations.' Which credibility question should be asked FIRST?
Answer: Is this consistent with current evidence-based guidelines for COPD management?
Evidence-based guidelines synthesize the best available research and are the primary reference for assessing the credibility of clinical claims.
A hospital administrator cites a testimonial from one nurse as evidence that a new scheduling system 'greatly improved staff satisfaction.' Which limitation of this evidence is MOST critical to identify?
Answer: A single testimonial is anecdotal and cannot represent the distribution of staff experiences
A single testimonial is an n=1 anecdote and provides no information about how representative that experience is across the broader staff population.
A clinical dietitian encounters a study that claims: 'Our proprietary protein supplement increases muscle mass by 300% in athletes.' The use of '300%' should trigger which credibility scrutiny?
Answer: Proportionality — extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence; a 300% effect size is implausibly large
Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. A 300% increase in muscle mass far exceeds known physiological limits, warranting extreme skepticism.
Two systematic reviews report conflicting conclusions about the effectiveness of acupuncture for chronic low back pain. Which approach BEST assesses the relative credibility of each review?
Answer: Compare their methodological quality: study selection criteria, risk of bias assessment tools, and heterogeneity management
Methodological quality — not recency, quantity, or institutional prestige — is the primary determinant of a systematic review's credibility.