Step 1: Appraising each study
| Question | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| Humans, animals or cells? | Only human studies can rate above “Preclinical only” |
| Randomised and placebo-controlled? | Without a fair comparison, changes can’t be attributed to shilajit |
| Blinded? | Expectations affect self-reported outcomes |
| How many people, for how long? | Small, short studies can miss or exaggerate effects |
| Which outcome? | Outcomes people notice outrank biomarkers |
| Which preparation and dose? | Results may apply only to the extract tested |
| Who funded it? | Reported for every study; increases the weight of independent replication |
Step 2: Rating the body of evidence
Our approach borrows GRADE’s central idea of judging certainty across all the evidence on a question, simplified for supplement topics.[1]
- StrongSeveral well-designed randomised human trials, consistent results, independent replication.
- ModerateMore than one controlled human trial, broadly consistent, with limits such as small size or one research group.
- LimitedOne or two small controlled human trials on a relevant outcome.
- Very limitedUncontrolled human data, or controlled data on biomarkers only.
- Preclinical onlyAnimal or laboratory studies only.
- Not studiedNo relevant research found.
Step 3: Adjustments
A rating moves down when results conflict, when studies share serious design flaws, or when the evidence comes from a different population or preparation. It moves up only with independent replication or a larger, better-designed trial. Topic ratings concern shilajit research in general, and no brand or commercial relationship enters into them.
Step 4: Updating
New studies are logged on the new studies log and appraised as above. Rating changes are recorded on the updates log. How studies are found is on how we find & summarise research.
Sources & further reading
Primary research, regulators and standards bodies are cited first. A source being listed here does not mean it supports every claim made by sellers; it supports the specific statement it is attached to.
- Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, et al.. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 336(7650):924–926, 2008. doi:10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.AD; PMID 18436948. View source (opens in a new tab) [Methods paper]