How We Review: Our Editorial Process
Every guide on Regenerated.Health follows a structured editorial process designed to produce accurate, useful, and transparent health content. Here is exactly how we create, review, and maintain our articles.
Step 1: Topic Selection
Topics are chosen based on patient demand (search data, reader requests), clinical relevance (emerging therapies with growing evidence), and gap analysis (identifying areas where existing online information is inaccurate, incomplete, or not properly sourced).
Step 2: Research
For each guide, we review:
- Primary literature: Original research papers, randomized controlled trials, and cohort studies published in peer-reviewed journals (PubMed, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar).
- Systematic reviews and meta-analyses: When available, these provide the highest level of evidence synthesis.
- Clinical guidelines: Consensus statements from professional medical organizations (UHMS, ACR, AGA, Endocrine Society, etc.).
- FDA and regulatory documents: Approval letters, safety warnings, clinical trial registrations (ClinicalTrials.gov).
We do not rely on press releases, manufacturer claims, or secondhand summaries as primary sources.
Step 3: Writing
Each guide is written to be accessible to patients while maintaining scientific accuracy. We follow these writing principles:
- Lead with what patients want to know (what it is, what it treats, whether it works)
- Use plain language. Medical terms are defined when first used.
- Present evidence levels clearly (established, promising, early, insufficient)
- Include cost information, side effects, and practical “what to expect” details
- Address common patient questions in FAQ sections
- Link to related guides for deeper reading on connected topics
Step 4: Evidence Grading
We assign evidence strength ratings to each treatment and application discussed:
| Rating | What It Means | Supporting Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Established | Well-supported by clinical evidence | Multiple RCTs, systematic reviews, FDA approval, or clinical guideline inclusion |
| Promising | Growing evidence supports effectiveness | Positive RCTs (small-moderate), consistent clinical experience, strong mechanistic rationale |
| Early | Interesting but needs more human data | Preclinical data, case series, pilot studies, Phase 1/2 trials |
| Insufficient | Mostly anecdotal at this point | Theoretical rationale exists but clinical evidence is lacking |
Step 5: Citation and Sourcing
Every factual claim is supported by a specific reference. References are listed at the bottom of each guide with author names, journal titles, and publication years. We prioritize:
- Systematic reviews and meta-analyses
- Randomized controlled trials
- Prospective cohort studies
- Case-control studies and case series
- Expert consensus and clinical guidelines
Step 6: Updates and Corrections
Medical research evolves. We review and update guides when:
- Significant new research is published (landmark trials, meta-analyses, guideline changes)
- FDA regulatory actions affect a covered treatment
- A reader or healthcare professional identifies an error or outdated information
- Periodic review cycles flag content for refresh
Publication and last-updated dates are displayed on each guide.
Found an Error?
If you find inaccurate information, an outdated study, or a broken reference, let us know. We take corrections seriously. If you point us to a better source, we will update the guide and credit you.