How We Review

Start with the exact claim

We identify whether a statement concerns chemistry, a biological mechanism, a cell or animal model, a human outcome, a regulatory status, or a product-quality document. Those statements require different evidence and should not be collapsed into one promise.

Source hierarchy

We prefer current regulator documents, official product labels, primary peer-reviewed studies, trial registries, and high-quality systematic reviews. We read methods and limitations where available, check whether the cited population and product match the claim, and distinguish a registered study from a completed result.

What we record

• the material, formulation, population, comparator, outcome, and time horizon;
• whether evidence is preclinical, observational, controlled, replicated, or regulator-reviewed;
• important exclusions, adverse-event reporting, conflicts, and unanswered questions;
• the date of the source and whether a newer safety or regulatory update changes its meaning.

Commercial relationships

We do not claim perfect neutrality. Editorial selection involves judgment, and future affiliate or sponsorship relationships may create incentives. Any such relationship must be disclosed clearly. Paid placement cannot be presented as independent laboratory verification, and commercial links must not bridge prescription-care content with research-use-only products.