How We Source
The rule that governs every page: no citation, no claim. Every clinical number on this site is attributed by name to the document that measured it — an FDA label, a peer-reviewed study, or a named professional society. Nothing here is based on personal experience, because nobody associated with this publication received or performed any of these treatments. And nothing here is medical advice.
Where the claims come from
Every statement here rests on a document rather than on personal experience. Nobody associated with this publication has been injected with botulinum toxin or filler, been treated with a laser, IPL, or RF microneedling device, or received PRP, and nobody here has administered any of those treatments to anyone. That is why the pages report what the trials and the labels measured, and name the document that measured it. The Federal Trade Commission's rule on reviews and testimonials, 16 CFR 465.2(a), treats a review that misrepresents the reviewer's experience as deceptive, which is why the distinction is stated here plainly rather than left to inference.
What we cite instead
Since we have no clinical experience to report, every claim rests on sources that do:
- FDA labeling and communications — prescribing information, device approval and clearance records, safety communications, and warning letters.
- Peer-reviewed literature — randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses, linked to the primary record (PubMed, Cochrane), never to another blog's summary of them.
- Government health agencies — CDC investigations and outbreak reports, state medical board guidance and enforcement records.
- Named professional societies — the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS), the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery (ASDS), and the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD), including ASPS national fee surveys for cost figures — always labeled as physician-fee averages that understate all-in prices.
Every claim names its source in the sentence that makes it, in place of "studies show" or "experts agree".
The certainty ladder
Evidence comes in grades, and our verbs are calibrated to them. The same ladder applies on every page, marked with the same chips:
| Grade | Verbs we use | What it takes |
|---|---|---|
| High | "is," "does," "reduces" | Concordant randomized trials or an FDA label |
| Moderate | "probably," "likely" | Good but limited trial evidence |
| Low | "may," "might" | Small or inconsistent studies |
| No reliable evidence | "there is no reliable evidence that" | Claims circulating without support |
Risks share the page with benefits
Every treatment article states risks on the same page as benefits, ranked from common to rare to catastrophic, without euphemism and without panic. Where a product is unapproved or counterfeit, we use the FDA's own epistemic frame: not "this is dangerous," but "nobody can tell you this is safe."
Nothing here is medical advice
The decision-maker is always a licensed clinician. This site is informational only. Whether a treatment is appropriate for you, at what dose, in which anatomy, and how a complication should be managed are individual medical judgments that cannot be made by a website — this one included. Our job is to equip that consultation, never to replace it. If you have symptoms that worry you after a treatment, contact the clinician who treated you, a board-certified physician, or emergency services.
Dating and updates
Evidence changes. Every article carries an "evidence reviewed to" date stamp stating when its sources were last checked, and an update log at the bottom recording what changed and when. Standing "what we don't know" sections state the open questions plainly rather than papering over them.
Corrections
If we got a number, a citation, or a characterization wrong, we want to know. Write to us via the contact page; corrections are noted in the article's update log.