Sources Policy

Our Evidence-Based Approach

Synedica is committed to an evidence-based approach to health communication. This means that our content is informed by the best available scientific research, clinical guidelines, and regulatory guidance not by anecdote, speculation, or commercial interest. We recognize that our readers are making important decisions about their health, and they deserve information that reflects the current state of scientific knowledge.

An evidence-based approach requires intellectual honesty. We acknowledge the limitations of available evidence, distinguish between well-established findings and emerging research, and avoid overstating the certainty of conclusions. When evidence is conflicting or incomplete, we say so clearly rather than presenting a misleadingly confident picture.

Our commitment to evidence-based content extends to all materials we publish, including product descriptions, educational guides, FAQ responses, and research summaries. Regardless of the content type, the same sourcing standards apply. This consistency ensures that readers can trust the information they find anywhere on our website.

Hierarchy of Evidence

Not all evidence is created equal. We apply a hierarchy of evidence that prioritizes the most rigorous and reliable forms of scientific research. This hierarchy guides our source selection and helps us present information with appropriate confidence levels.

When making claims about treatment efficacy, safety, or clinical outcomes, we prioritize higher-level evidence whenever available. We clearly indicate when claims are based on lower levels of evidence and explain the implications for certainty and generalizability.

Acceptable Source Categories

We draw from a defined set of source categories that meet our standards for credibility, accuracy, and reliability. The following categories represent the types of sources we consider acceptable for supporting factual claims in our content.

Peer-Reviewed Scientific Literature

Peer-reviewed journals represent the gold standard for scientific evidence. We cite research published in reputable medical and scientific journals that employ rigorous peer review processes. We give preference to journals indexed in major databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase) and those with established impact factors. Examples include The New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, JAMA, Diabetes Care, and Obesity.

Regulatory Documents and Prescribing Information

Official documents from regulatory authorities provide authoritative information about approved medications, including indications, dosing, contraindications, and safety profiles. We cite FDA prescribing information (package inserts), FDA approval letters, EMA assessment reports, and official safety communications. These sources are essential for accurate product information.

Clinical Practice Guidelines

Evidence-based guidelines from professional medical organizations synthesize research evidence into practical clinical recommendations. We cite guidelines from organizations such as the American Diabetes Association (ADA), the Endocrine Society, the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology (AACE), and equivalent international bodies. We note the date and version of guidelines cited, as recommendations evolve over time.

Government Health Agencies

Government health agencies provide reliable information on public health topics, disease statistics, and health recommendations. Acceptable sources include the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Institutes of Health (NIH), World Health Organization (WHO), and equivalent agencies in other countries.

Academic and Research Institutions

Educational materials and research summaries from accredited universities, medical schools, and research institutions may be cited when they provide accurate, well-referenced information. We verify that such materials are consistent with primary research sources.

Manufacturer Data (With Disclosure)

In some cases, manufacturer-provided data may be the only or best available source for specific product information. When citing manufacturer data, we clearly disclose the source and note any potential conflicts of interest. We corroborate manufacturer claims with independent sources whenever possible.

Sources We Do Not Use

To maintain the integrity and reliability of our content, we exclude certain categories of sources that do not meet our standards for credibility or accuracy.

Non-Peer-Reviewed Publications

We do not cite preprints, conference abstracts, or unpublished research as primary evidence for factual claims. While such sources may inform our understanding of emerging topics, they have not undergone the rigorous review process necessary for reliable conclusions. We may reference preprints when discussing emerging research, with clear disclosure of their preliminary nature.

Predatory or Low-Quality Journals

We avoid journals that lack rigorous peer review standards, charge publication fees without providing editorial services, or have been identified as predatory. We evaluate journal quality using established criteria and consult resources that identify questionable publishers.

Anonymous or Unverifiable Sources

We do not cite sources that cannot be verified or that lack clear authorship and institutional affiliation. Health information must be traceable to accountable individuals or organizations.

Social Media and User-Generated Content

Social media posts, forum discussions, and user-generated content are not acceptable sources for factual claims about health topics. While patient experiences have value, they do not constitute scientific evidence and may be misleading or inaccurate.

Promotional Materials

Marketing materials, press releases, and promotional content from pharmaceutical companies or other commercial entities are not used as primary sources. Such materials may present information selectively and are not subject to independent review.

Outdated Sources

We avoid citing sources that have been superseded by more recent research or that no longer reflect current scientific understanding. For rapidly evolving topics, we prioritize recent publications and update our content when new evidence emerges.

Source Evaluation Criteria

Before citing any source, our editorial team evaluates it against a set of criteria designed to assess credibility, accuracy, and relevance. This evaluation process helps ensure that only high-quality sources inform our content.

Authority

We assess the credentials and expertise of authors, the reputation of publishing journals or organizations, and the institutional affiliations involved. Sources authored by recognized experts in relevant fields and published by reputable organizations receive higher consideration.

Accuracy

We verify that sources present information accurately and that claims are supported by appropriate evidence. We cross-reference key findings against other reliable sources to confirm accuracy. Sources that contain factual errors or misrepresent research findings are excluded.

Currency

We evaluate whether sources reflect current scientific understanding. For clinical topics, we prioritize recent publications (typically within the past 5 years) unless citing foundational research that remains valid. We note publication dates in our citations so readers can assess currency.

Objectivity

We consider potential biases that may affect source reliability. This includes evaluating funding sources, author conflicts of interest, and whether the source presents a balanced view of evidence. Sources with undisclosed conflicts or apparent bias are treated with appropriate caution.

Relevance

We ensure that sources are directly relevant to the claims they support. We avoid citing sources that address tangentially related topics or that require extrapolation beyond what the evidence supports.

Methodology (for Research Studies)

For research studies, we evaluate the quality of study design, sample size, statistical methods, and potential limitations. We give preference to well-designed studies with adequate power and appropriate controls. We note significant methodological limitations when citing studies.

Citation Practices

Clear and consistent citation practices allow readers to verify our claims and explore topics further. We follow established conventions for citing sources and provide sufficient information for readers to locate original materials.

What We Cite

We provide citations for:

• Specific factual claims, statistics, and numerical data
• Clinical trial results and research findings
• Dosing recommendations and prescribing information
• Safety information, including side effects and contraindications
• Statements attributed to specific organizations or experts
• Information that readers may wish to verify or explore further

Citation Format

Citations are provided as hyperlinks to source materials whenever possible, allowing readers to access original sources directly. For sources that are not freely accessible online, we provide sufficient bibliographic information (authors, title, journal, year, volume, pages) for readers to locate the source through libraries or databases.

In-Text Attribution

When citing specific studies or guidelines, we typically include in-text attribution that identifies the source (e.g., "According to the STEP 1 trial..." or "The American Diabetes Association recommends..."). This practice provides immediate context and helps readers assess the authority of the information.

Reference Lists

For longer articles and guides, we may include a reference list at the end of the content that compiles all sources cited. This allows readers to review the evidence base for the entire article and access sources of interest.

Linking to Primary Sources

Whenever possible, we link directly to primary sources (original research papers, official documents) rather than secondary summaries or news reports. This ensures that readers have access to complete, unfiltered information.

Handling Limited or Conflicting Evidence

Scientific knowledge is constantly evolving, and not all questions have clear, definitive answers. We are committed to intellectual honesty in how we present information when evidence is limited, emerging, or conflicting.

Acknowledging Uncertainty

When evidence is limited or preliminary, we clearly communicate this uncertainty to readers. We use qualifying language (e.g., "early research suggests," "limited evidence indicates," "more research is needed") to convey appropriate levels of confidence. We avoid presenting uncertain findings as established facts.

Presenting Conflicting Evidence

When reputable sources present conflicting findings or interpretations, we acknowledge the disagreement rather than selectively presenting one perspective. We explain the nature of the conflict, the quality of evidence on each side, and any factors that might explain the discrepancy. This approach respects reader intelligence and supports informed decision-making.

Distinguishing Evidence Levels

We clearly distinguish between different levels of evidence when presenting information. Claims supported by multiple high-quality randomized trials are presented differently than those based on observational data or expert opinion. This transparency helps readers calibrate their confidence in the information.

Emerging Research

For topics where research is actively evolving, we note that understanding may change as new evidence emerges. We commit to updating our content when significant new findings are published, and we indicate when content addresses rapidly developing areas of research.

Areas Without Strong Evidence

Some questions of interest to our readers may not have strong scientific evidence to support definitive answers. In such cases, we acknowledge the evidence gap honestly rather than speculating or extrapolating beyond what the data support. We may present the range of expert opinions while noting the absence of conclusive evidence.

Source Verification Process

Our editorial process includes systematic verification of sources to ensure that citations are accurate and that sources support the claims for which they are cited.

Pre-Publication Verification

Before content is published, our editorial team verifies that:

• All factual claims are supported by cited sources
• Citations accurately reflect what the source says
• Sources meet our quality criteria
• Links to sources are functional and lead to the correct materials
• Quoted material is accurately reproduced

Ongoing Link Maintenance

Web links can break over time as sources are moved, updated, or removed. We periodically audit our content to identify and fix broken links. When original sources become unavailable, we attempt to locate archived versions or substitute equivalent authoritative sources.

Responding to Source Challenges

If readers or experts challenge the accuracy or appropriateness of our sources, we investigate the concern and respond according to our Corrections Policy. We welcome feedback that helps us improve the quality and accuracy of our sourcing.

Special Considerations for Product Information

Information about the products we sell requires particular care to ensure accuracy and avoid conflicts of interest. We apply additional standards when sourcing product-related content.

Prescribing Information as Primary Source

For approved medications, the official prescribing information (package insert) serves as the primary authoritative source for indications, dosing, contraindications, warnings, and adverse reactions. Our product information is consistent with current prescribing information, and we update our content when prescribing information changes.

Clinical Trial Data

Claims about product efficacy are supported by published clinical trial data. We cite the specific trials that support efficacy claims and provide context about trial design, populations studied, and outcomes measured. We avoid extrapolating trial results beyond what the evidence supports.

Independence from Marketing

Our editorial sourcing decisions are independent of marketing considerations. We do not selectively cite sources to present our products in an unrealistically favorable light. Product information includes balanced coverage of both benefits and risks, supported by appropriate sources for each.

Investigational Products

For investigational products not yet approved by regulatory authorities, we clearly indicate their regulatory status and base our information on published research. We distinguish between approved uses and investigational applications, and we note when evidence comes from early-phase trials with inherent limitations.

Reader Resources

We encourage readers to explore primary sources and develop their own ability to evaluate health information. The following resources may be helpful for readers who wish to learn more about evidence-based health information.

Accessing Scientific Literature

Many scientific papers are available through:

• PubMed Central: Free archive of biomedical and life sciences literature (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc)
• PubMed: Database of biomedical literature citations (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)
• Google Scholar: Search engine for scholarly literature (scholar.google.com)
• Public Libraries: Many libraries provide access to scientific databases

Regulatory Information

Official drug information is available from:

• FDA Drug Database: Prescribing information for FDA-approved drugs (accessdata.fda.gov)
• DailyMed: FDA label information (dailymed.nlm.nih.gov)
• EMA: European Medicines Agency product information (www.ema.europa.eu)

Evaluating Health Information

Resources for learning to evaluate health information quality:

• MedlinePlus: NIH guide to evaluating health information (medlineplus.gov)
• DISCERN: Tool for evaluating health information quality (www.discern.org.uk)

Contact Information

If you have questions about our sourcing practices, wish to suggest additional sources for our content, or have concerns about the accuracy of our citations, please contact our editorial team:

Email (Editorial): editorial synedica.co
Email (Corrections): corrections synedica.co
General Inquiries: contact synedica.co
Postal Address: Synedica Laboratories, Deutscher Pl. 5b, 04103 Leipzig, Germany

We welcome feedback from readers, healthcare professionals, and researchers that helps us improve the quality and accuracy of our content.

Last Updated: January 29, 2024