Editorial standards

Sourcing

• Every fact carries a source marker linking to the source list at the bottom of the article, with the date the source was opened.
• Sources we use, best first: the brand's own product pages, FAQ and terms; FDA databases; peer-reviewed studies; professional bodies such as the AAD and NHS; retailer listings for prices and rating counts; established press for awards.
• We don't treat other review sites, AI-written lists, Reddit or TikTok as evidence. We may read them to learn what questions people ask.
• Product facts are checked fresh for each article, on the product's own page.

Claims

• Brand claims are reported as the brand's claims ("Brand X says..."), not repeated as fact.
• Regulatory status is quoted exactly from the FDA database or the brand. A cleared device is never called "approved".
• For studies we report who ran them, how many people took part, for how long, and whether there was a control group.

Fairness

• All products in an article are judged on the same criteria, listed in the article.
• Every product's downsides are listed.
• Negative facts must be checkable on a public page today. We don't guess at motives, quality control or safety.
• Brands are listed in alphabetical order in comparisons, so the layout never hints at a favourite.
• We don't link to brand shops, and we don't use affiliate links or discount codes.

Hands-on testing

We don't test products ourselves unless an article says so explicitly. Articles never claim "we tested" without that.

Corrections

When a fact in an article turns out to be wrong or out of date, we correct it and update the "Updated" and "Facts checked" dates at the top of the article.