H

Under Development: This website is actively being built. Some features and content may be incomplete.

Evidence & Methodology

Transparent about how we evaluate research, classify evidence, and maintain accuracy and credibility.

Last Updated: January 15, 2025

Our Approach to Evidence

Throughout this website, you'll see evidence badges that indicate the strength of research support for specific claims, treatments, or recommendations. This transparency helps you understand which information is well-established by the medical community and which is based on preliminary, limited, or conflicting evidence.

Our goal is to empower you with accurate, evidence-based information while being honest about uncertainties, research gaps, and areas where the science is still evolving—particularly in women's health, which has been historically understudied.

Evidence Levels Explained

We use a four-tier system to communicate the strength of evidence behind the information presented:

✓✓✓Well-Established
Well-Established Evidence

What this means:

Multiple high-quality studies (randomized controlled trials, large observational studies, systematic reviews, or meta-analyses) support this information. There is medical consensus from major organizations like ACOG (American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists), the Endocrine Society, or NAMS (North American Menopause Society).

What you can expect:

  • This information is considered standard medical knowledge
  • Most healthcare providers will be familiar with and support these findings
  • Evidence is consistent across multiple studies and populations

Examples:

  • • "Hormone replacement therapy reduces hot flashes and night sweats in perimenopause"
  • • "NSAIDs are effective for primary dysmenorrhea (period pain)"
  • • "Strength training improves bone density and reduces osteoporosis risk"
✓✓Emerging Evidence
Emerging / Limited Evidence

What this means:

Research exists and shows promise, but it's based on smaller studies, observational data, or preliminary findings. Results may not be consistent across all studies, or more research is needed to confirm initial findings.

What you can expect:

  • This information is promising but not yet considered standard practice
  • Some healthcare providers may be familiar with it; others may not
  • May require discussion and shared decision-making with your provider

Examples:

  • • "Inositol supplements may improve ovulation in women with PCOS"
  • • "Pelvic floor physical therapy may help with mild pelvic organ prolapse"
  • • "Certain probiotic strains may reduce recurrent UTI risk"
✓Preliminary
Preliminary Evidence

What this means:

Very limited research exists—perhaps only one or two small studies, case reports, or animal/lab studies. The findings are interesting but far from conclusive. Consider these tentative until more rigorous research is conducted.

What you can expect:

  • This is exploratory information, not yet validated
  • Most healthcare providers will not recommend based on this level of evidence
  • Approach with caution and discuss thoroughly with your provider

Examples:

  • • "Berberine may improve insulin sensitivity (limited human data)"
  • • "Red light therapy for endometriosis pain (very small pilot studies)"
  • • "Certain dietary patterns may affect endometriosis symptoms (observational data only)"
⚠Research Gap
Research Gap / Insufficient Evidence

What this means:

Insufficient research exists to draw conclusions. This may be due to lack of funding, ethical constraints, difficulty studying the topic, or conflicting study results. Information may be based on expert opinion, theoretical understanding, or extrapolation from related research.

What you can expect:

  • We simply don't have good data on this topic yet
  • Recommendations are based on clinical experience or theoretical reasoning
  • Individual experimentation with close monitoring may be necessary

Examples:

  • • "Optimal exercise timing for specific phases of the menstrual cycle"
  • • "Long-term health outcomes of different PCOS phenotypes"
  • • "Seed oils and inflammatory markers in women with endometriosis"

How We Select & Evaluate Information

Primary Sources

All content is based on peer-reviewed medical literature and established clinical guidelines. We prioritize:

  • Clinical Practice Guidelines from major medical organizations (ACOG, Endocrine Society, NAMS, ADA, AACE)
  • Systematic Reviews & Meta-Analyses from Cochrane Library and leading medical journals
  • Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) published in peer-reviewed journals
  • Large Observational Studies from reputable research institutions
  • Current Medical Textbooks and authoritative reference materials

Evaluation Criteria

When reviewing research, we consider:

  • Study design quality: RCTs > observational studies > case reports
  • Sample size: Larger, more diverse populations provide stronger evidence
  • Consistency: Do multiple independent studies show similar results?
  • Recency: We prioritize recent research (past 5-10 years) while recognizing foundational studies
  • Funding sources & conflicts of interest: We note industry-funded research with appropriate skepticism
  • Clinical relevance: Does the research translate to real-world patient outcomes?

What Evidence Badges Don't Mean

To avoid misunderstanding, here's what our evidence badges are NOT:

  • They are not personal recommendations: Evidence badges show research support, not whether something is right for your specific situation.
  • They don't predict your individual outcome: Even well-established treatments don't work for everyone. Your response may differ from the average.
  • They're not static or permanent: Evidence levels can and do change as new research emerges or existing studies are reanalyzed.
  • They don't account for cost, access, or personal values: A well-established treatment may be unaffordable, unavailable, or misaligned with your priorities.
  • They don't replace clinical judgment: Your healthcare provider's expertise, knowledge of your medical history, and assessment of your individual case cannot be replicated by research summaries.

Using This Information With Your Healthcare Provider

The purpose of this website is to help you have informed, collaborative conversations with your healthcare provider—not to replace medical advice or clinical judgment.

How to use evidence-based information effectively:

  • Come prepared: Use this site to identify questions, understand your symptoms, and learn about potential treatment options before appointments.
  • Ask about applicability: "I read that X treatment has strong evidence for Y condition. Does that apply to my specific situation?"
  • Discuss trade-offs: Most treatments have both benefits and risks. Ask how they balance out for your circumstances.
  • Advocate respectfully: If you feel dismissed or unheard, reference evidence politely: "Guidelines from [organization] suggest considering this option. Can we discuss why it might or might not work for me?"
  • Seek second opinions when needed: If your provider is unfamiliar with evidence-based approaches or dismissive of valid concerns, it's appropriate to seek another perspective.

Our Commitment to Accuracy & Transparency

We commit to presenting information as accurately and honestly as possible, including:

  • Being transparent about uncertainty: We explicitly note when evidence is limited, conflicting, or evolving.
  • Avoiding hype: We don't overstate benefits or downplay risks to promote specific treatments.
  • Acknowledging complexity: Women's hormonal health is nuanced and individual. We avoid oversimplification.
  • Updating regularly: We review and update content periodically as new research emerges.
  • No conflicts of interest: This site is educational and not influenced by commercial interests.

Related Resources

Testing & Diagnosis GuideHealthcare Advocacy Tools