Editorial policy

1. Evidence before enthusiasm.We report what the research shows, including when the answer is “we do not know yet”.
2. Sources you can check. Clinical claims are traceable to guidelines, regulator publications or peer-reviewed research, and we link them.
3. Money never moves a conclusion. Commercial relationships do not affect what we recommend, the scores we give, or what we are willing to criticise. Where a partner has paid for position at the top of a ranking, that entry is labelled and its score and drawbacks are unchanged.
4. Plain language. If a reader cannot act on it, we have not finished writing it.
5. Say the uncomfortable thing. Where a popular treatment lacks evidence, we say so — including when we could earn money by not saying so.
6. Correct in public. Substantive errors are corrected on the page, not quietly edited away.

We work down a hierarchy of evidence:

• Clinical practice guidelines from bodies such as the American Urological Association and the Endocrine Society.
• Regulator publications — FDA approved labelling, safety communications and enforcement actions.
• Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials.
• Individual randomised controlled trials.
• Reputable clinical references from institutions such as NIDDK, Mayo Clinic and Cleveland Clinic.

We do not treat press releases, manufacturer marketing, testimonials or single observational studies as sufficient support for a clinical claim.

What we do with uncertainty

Where evidence is weak, contested or absent, we say so explicitly and explain what would need to change our assessment. We grade treatments as strong, moderate, limited or investigational, and that grade is shown on every treatment page.

Clinical content is reviewed by a licensed clinician before publication and re-reviewed on a defined cycle. Pages that have been reviewed carry a “Medically reviewed” date in the byline linking to our medical review process.

Reviewers check clinical accuracy, currency against present guidelines, appropriate framing of risk, and the absence of claims that could lead a reader to delay necessary care. A reviewer can require changes and can decline to sign off.

Pages without a review date have not yet been through clinical review. We would rather tell you that than imply a review that did not happen.

• Every page carries a visible last updated date.
• Clinical pages are reviewed at least every 12 months.
• Pages are updated outside that cycle when a guideline changes, a regulator issues a safety communication, a significant trial publishes, or a price or product materially changes.
• Prices are labelled as estimates with the date they were checked, because they move constantly.
• Source links are re-verified at each review.

We earn affiliate commissions. That creates a conflict of interest, and the only honest response is to describe exactly how it is contained.

• No partner can pay for coverage, a rating, a verdict or the removal of criticism. Position in a ranking can be purchased, and where it has been the entry is labelled “Sponsored placement” with its unchanged score and drawbacks still shown.
• No partner reviews or approves content before publication.
• Ratings follow a published rubric applied identically to every service, including those that pay us nothing.
• A “Recommended” label is an editorial judgement and is not for sale. It always states who it is for, because a recommendation without a reader in mind is marketing. It is independent of the score, so a modest score can carry a narrow recommendation — and where it does, the reasons are on the page.
• Non-monetised options remain in our recommendations, and are labelled as such.
• Where a partner’s product is the weaker option, we say so.

Full detail is on how we make money.

• Claims that any product cures erectile dysfunction. Nothing currently does.
• Before-and-after imagery or testimonials presented as evidence of effectiveness.
• Content that could lead a reader to delay urgent medical care.
• Promotion of products sold without a required prescription.
• Fabricated reviewer credentials, invented experts, or AI-generated personas presented as real people.
• Content that shames readers about masculinity, age or performance in order to sell them something.

We use AI tools for research assistance, drafting support and editing. We do not publish unreviewed AI output. Every clinical claim is verified against a primary source by a human, and clinical pages go through human medical review. We never present AI-generated text as the work of a named clinician.

If you believe something here is wrong, tell us at corrections@edtreatmentguides.com. Our corrections policy explains what happens next.