A quick guide to interpreting that buzzy new COVID-19 research everyone’s talking about on Twitter:

Size matters: When it comes to clinical trials, bigger is better — and the more conclusive the results. Tread carefully when interpreting studies with only a small number of participants; these will need to be replicated by larger and more rigorous trials before conclusions can be drawn.

Two words: peer reviewed: The best studies are those that have been vetted by others in the scientific community. Look for credible peer-reviewed journals with established track records and avoid predatory journals that prioritize revenue over scientific rigour.

Not all studies are created equal: “Randomized controlled trials,” or RCTs, are the gold standard when it comes to evaluating whether a new drug works or not. Even better is if the study is blinded (the participants don’t know whether they’re receiving the drug or a placebo) or double-blinded (both experimenters and participants are kept in the dark).

Understand the meaning of a “pre-print”: Pre-prints are studies that haven’t been submitted for publication or are still under review. COVID-19 pre-prints are posted on publicly-accessible websites like MedRxiv, but many never get accepted for publication — even though they continue to live online indefinitely.

Disease models aren’t crystal balls: Disease modelling projections can’t predict the future. What they can do is compare different scenarios so policymakers can choose the best course of action. Two important caveats to keep in mind: modelling projections are always based on assumptions — so it’s good to understand what those are — and they’re only as good as the data that’s available.