Six decisions. Your first evidence investigation.

A guided introduction, designed for new learners. Follow a real historical trial dataset, predict what happens when another source record is included, and discover which skills deserve more practice.

Evidence boundaries: All event counts and numerical answers come from documented metadat teaching datasets. The order of revelations is an instructional design, not an account of trial discovery or a completed review. No clinical recommendations, fabricated patients, religious teaching, independent competency assessment or learner data uploads.

How to use this starter

Make a real methodological decision, inspect immediate feedback, and continue. You can revise wrong answers, but the first attempt stays recorded locally so your practice recommendations remain meaningful. The path is untimed; allow around 10–15 minutes. You can also review any earlier decision.

English-language pilot. New practice prompts are not professionally translated or reviewed in other course languages; the twelve existing course routes remain available.

Decision 1 of 6

0 of 6 decisions attempted

An authentic published trial table is about to challenge a seemingly simple conclusion.

The first record

Open original R dataset documentation ↗

The real sources behind your decisions

Hine 1989 contains six lidocaine trial records with genuine deaths and denominators; Berkey 1998 contains five trials with correlated outcomes; Egger 2001 contains the magnesium evidence example. These are historical, sourced R datasets, not a current comprehensive clinical synthesis.

Your progress stays on this device

Answers are stored only in browser local storage and can be exported as Markdown. No server-side analytics, tracking or personal details are used.