Editorial Methodology
Our goal is to provide accurate, unbiased, and scientifically sound information. Because dietary supplements operate in a loosely regulated space, we apply a strict editorial methodology to our evaluations.
Evidence Grading System
When analyzing the claims made by supplement manufacturers, we look for independent verification. We prioritize sources in the following order:
- Systematic Reviews & Meta-Analyses: The gold standard. We look for reviews of multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
- Double-Blind RCTs: Independent trials testing a specific ingredient against a placebo.
- In-Vitro & Animal Studies: Useful for establishing biological mechanisms (e.g., how cranberry extracts prevent bacterial adhesion in a petri dish), but not definitive proof of human efficacy.
- Traditional/Herbal Monographs: Historical data (like EMA monographs for Uva Ursi) providing context on safety and historical use.
The "Evidence Distance" Principle
We believe in radical transparency regarding "Evidence Distance." A common tactic in supplement marketing is to cite a study showing that a specific ingredient works, and imply that the entire finished product is clinically proven.
We explicitly state when a study applies only to a specific ingredient, rather than the final proprietary blend. The finished Femicore product has not undergone its own clinical trials, which is standard for the industry, but must be disclosed to consumers.
Correction Policy
Science is constantly evolving. If a new, peer-reviewed clinical trial is published that contradicts our current analysis of Femicore's ingredients, we will update our content accordingly. If you spot a factual error in our clinical citations, please reach out via our Contact page.