When investigators report the findings from a clinical trial, the results require interpretation. Peer review is the process through which the structure and execution of a clinical study is judged to be coherent, linear, and logical. The procedure is not unlike conducting a mental status exam: the evaluator is trying to discern if the content is credible at face value, if any underlying factors that could be biasing the results are accounted for, if the observed phenomena are being interpreted accurately, and if the conclusions drawn are valid. With varying degrees of provisionality or certainty, clinical trials give information about the narrow impact of (usually) one intervention versus a comparator (a placebo; an active comparator; or treatment as usual (TAU)) for a circumscribed period of time, with efforts made to hold other relevant variables constant (so, no other treatments are begun or altered, adherence must be near-perfect, substance use is grounds for ejection, and major life disruptions could botch the findings).