You find a study that supports a sensational eat-and-cure claim, but its funding statement lists the food industry as the primary sponsor and the authors have consultancy ties. Which evaluative judgment is most appropriate about adopting the study's claim into practice?

• A. Assume that conflicts of interest do not matter so long as the conclusions are positive, because results speak for themselves irrespective of funding sources.
• B. Exercise caution: prioritize independent replication and larger, preferably government- or academically-funded trials before adopting the claim; critically appraise methodology for bias introduced by funding and consult systematic reviews if available.
• C. Reject the claim solely because industry funding exists; industry-funded research can never contribute valid knowledge and should be ignored.
• D. Incorporate the claim immediately into practice because industry sponsorship ensures the most relevant product testing and therefore the fastest route to application.

Answer: (B)