Scientific claims should be traceable to primary or authoritative sources, proportional to the study design and explicit about uncertainty.
Source hierarchy
We prefer peer-reviewed primary research, PubMed records, trial registries and government or academic sources. Systematic reviews can orient a topic; individual claims are checked against underlying evidence when practical.
Evidence hierarchy
Multiple good controlled human studies carry more weight than a single small trial. Observational findings can identify associations, while animal and laboratory studies explain plausibility—not human outcomes.
Product methodology and affiliates
Product facts are time-stamped and verified against current labels or manufacturer documentation. Affiliate status is stored separately and cannot change an editorial score. Sponsored links are labeled and use sponsored/nofollow attributes.
AI use
AI may assist with research organization, outlining, data extraction, readability and formatting. Scientific and medical factual claims require checking against primary or authoritative sources before publication. AI does not independently approve or publish health claims.
Corrections and freshness
Major guides display published, updated and evidence-review dates. Pages are flagged for review after 6–12 months or sooner when material evidence changes. Corrections that alter meaning are documented.
Conflicts and uncertainty
Funding, employment and relevant product relationships are recorded when identified. Absence of evidence is described as uncertainty, not as proof of safety or ineffectiveness.
Educational information only. This page does not provide personalized medical advice.
Read the full disclaimer →