Editorial standards

The short version: We distinguish published evidence, provider claims and unanswered questions. A useful review shows the limits of what its sources establish.

We distinguish published evidence from provider claims, approved treatments from experimental uses, and a quoted price from the total cost of care. Readers should be able to follow sources and understand what remains unknown.

Evidence before a conclusion

Primary research, trial registries, regulator records and prescribing information carry different kinds of evidence. We distinguish an abstract from a full paper, a trial registration from a result, and a company statement from an independently established fact. Animal studies and laboratory experiments do not demonstrate that a marketed human product works.

Where a study is relevant, the population, formulation, comparison group and follow-up matter alongside the numerical result. An uncontrolled case report or customer survey cannot establish a treatment effect. A finding about an approved brand does not validate an unapproved compounded formulation.

Provider reviews and practical comparisons

Reviews use publicly available product information and service policies. A provider naming a pharmacy is a disclosure, not proof of which pharmacy will fill an individual prescription. Prices must identify the medicine, form, billing interval, required fees and commitment. A welcome discount, annual-plan equivalent and recurring monthly charge are separate offers. When the sources conflict or cannot establish the current amount, a written quote is more useful than a precise-looking estimate.

Commercial relationships

Commissions can affect inclusion, order and featured placements. They cannot establish a clinical benefit, remove an important limitation or turn an unknown price into a verified one. Disclosures appear with commercial content, and How we earn explains the arrangements. A high position on a list is not a recommendation that treatment is suitable for you.

Authorship and revision dates

The publication is responsible for its organizational bylines. We do not describe an article as medically reviewed without a verifiable reviewer and actual review. A design change does not establish a new evidence check. Revision dates describe editorial updates; dates in cited research identify the underlying source. Neither is a guarantee that a provider's offer has stayed unchanged since the review.

Corrections and unanswered questions

Send a page link, the disputed passage and a supporting public source through Contact. We assess the issue, correct substantive errors and preserve uncertainty where available evidence cannot resolve it. We do not promise to publish every submission or provide treatment advice through correspondence.