Our Research Standards

What this label is not

Articles on this site carry a byline that says they were reviewed by the EdClinic Editorial Team. That is not a claim of clinical review. No one on our editorial team is representing themselves as a licensed physician, pharmacist, or nurse practitioner reviewing this content for medical accuracy in the way a provider's own clinical staff would review a treatment plan. We think that distinction matters enough to say it plainly instead of letting a vague byline imply more than it should.

What "editorial review" does mean here

Every article on this site goes through the same process before it publishes:

No fabricated statistics. If a number, study, or specific claim isn't independently verifiable, we don't publish it as fact. Several articles on this site are deliberately structural or process-focused rather than statistical for exactly this reason — we'd rather tell you we don't know a specific figure than invent one that sounds authoritative.
Provider claims are labeled as claims. When we reference something a provider says about itself — a launch date, a company history detail, a satisfaction claim — we attribute it as the provider's own statement, not as independently verified fact.
Compounding and regulatory disclaimers are non-negotiable. Any article discussing compounded medication carries the same disclosure every time: compounded formulations are not FDA-approved in the way brand-name products are, and effectiveness/safety haven't been independently evaluated by the FDA in the same way.
Affiliate relationships are disclosed on every page that has one. Every paid link is labeled "Paid Link" and carries rel="sponsored" markup, visible right next to the link itself — not buried in a footer you'd have to go looking for.
Content gets corrected, not quietly edited. When we get something wrong, we fix it and note that it changed rather than silently updating the page as if the error never existed.

How we decide what to write

We deliberately stay out of clinical and pharmacological territory — mechanism-of-action explainers, drug interaction deep-dives, condition-specific medical content. That's not our area of legitimate expertise, and there are other resources, including the providers' own licensed clinicians, better positioned to cover it responsibly. What we focus on instead: how providers' processes actually work, what to expect from an evaluation, how to think about compounded versus brand-name options structurally, and how to compare providers on the practical dimensions that don't require a medical license to evaluate honestly.

Where we get information from

Provider-specific process details (intake style, evaluation format, what's offered) come from each provider's own public-facing materials and offer descriptions. Regulatory and compounding information reflects general, publicly available FDA guidance on compounding practice. Where an article would require a statistic, study citation, or timeline we can't independently verify, we either research it properly before publishing or we don't include it — we don't estimate and present it as fact.

If you find something wrong

Tell us. Contact us here with the specific article and what you think is inaccurate, and we'll look into it and correct it if it's warranted.

The short version