Editorial policy

Our mission

Evidence-first health education.

Our sources

We prioritise the highest-quality evidence available for each claim. Our preferred sources are systematic reviews, meta-analyses, randomised controlled trials (RCTs), NICE guidelines, NHS guidance, Cochrane reviews, and peer-reviewed journals.

Evidence hierarchy

Every article carries an evidence-strength label applied to the article's central claim. If sub-claims differ, we state the weakest relevant tier for the headline claim. The tiers are:

• Strong — supported by a systematic review or meta-analysis of RCTs, or a current NICE / Cochrane conclusion.
• Moderate — supported by one or more well-conducted RCTs, or consistent large observational studies, without a contrary higher-tier finding.
• Limited — small, mixed, or observational-only evidence; effect plausible but not established.
• Emerging — early or preclinical work, single small studies, or mechanistic reasoning; explicitly provisional.

Human review

Every article undergoes human review for scientific accuracy, clarity, and responsible communication before publication. Where an article has been independently reviewed by a credentialled person other than the author, that reviewer is named at the top of the article. When no such reviewer is named, no independent review has taken place — and we will not imply otherwise.

AI usage

AI may assist with outlining, summarisation, and editorial workflows. It does not replace human judgement or the review step above.

Updating articles

Articles are reviewed periodically and updated when significant new evidence or clinical guidance becomes available. Each article carries a visible Last reviewed date and a scheduled next-review date.

Corrections

If you find an error or a more recent finding that supersedes a citation we use, please write to us at info@cypressquillmedia.com — we update content when we are wrong.