Editorial Standards

Independence

Editorial decisions are separate from commercial interests. Decisions about what to cover, how to evaluate providers, what awards to give, and which criticisms to publish rest with the editorial lead. We do not accept payment, gifts, free services, or value-in-kind from any provider in exchange for coverage, inclusion, ranking, award placement, or specific editorial language.

Sourcing

Clinical and pharmacological claims rest on three categories of source: the major menopause-society and endocrine-society guidance documents; the peer-reviewed literature, with preference for systematic reviews and large randomised trials over single small studies; and FDA-approved prescribing information for the specific products discussed. We name sources within the text where the claim turns on a specific finding.

Provider-specific claims about formulary, pricing, state coverage, and clinical model are sourced from the vendor's own materials at the time of evaluation and, where possible, verified against a second source. Pricing and state coverage move; we date the evaluation cycle so the reader can judge currency.

Source hierarchy for health claims

For clinical and medication-related claims, we prioritize current guidance from major medical societies, FDA materials and prescribing information, systematic reviews, large trials, and peer-reviewed literature. Provider marketing pages are used for provider-specific claims such as pricing, availability, formulary, and care model, but not as the sole authority for clinical safety claims.

If evidence is uncertain, changing, or disputed, the page says so plainly.

Labels we never use without earning them

We do not say a provider has been “hands-on tested” unless an editor completed the sign-up flow and the consult. We do not say a piece has been “clinically reviewed” unless a named licensed clinician with appropriate credentials read and signed off on the piece. We do not invent author headshots, credentials, or affiliations. We do not fabricate user quotes, customer testimonials, sample-size claims, or case studies. We do not display fake “As Seen In” badges or fake social-proof counters.

AI-assisted workflow

We may use AI-assisted tools for outlining, summarising source material, drafting support, proofreading, and formatting. AI tools do not make editorial decisions, assign rankings, determine award winners, or serve as sources. Every published page is reviewed by a human editor before publication. Clinical claims are either reviewed by a named clinician or labeled clearly as not medically reviewed.

Voice and tone

We address the reader directly, in plain language, as an intelligent adult. We do not write “girl,” “babe,” or “queen.” We do not write in the breathy idiom of aughts-era women's blogging. We avoid medicalese where plain English will do. We do not present opinion as fact; where we are making an editorial judgment, the text says so.

Separation of editorial and affiliate

As of May 2026, no provider links on this site are affiliate links. Provider links are non-affiliate editorial links pointing directly to provider websites. If active affiliate relationships are added, affected links will be labeled near the link, disclosed above the fold on pages that contain them, and tagged with rel="sponsored noopener". Affiliate relationships do not influence rankings. We cover providers with whom we have no affiliate relationship where doing so makes the comparison more honest, and we are willing to remove a provider from coverage even where we hold an active affiliate relationship if our editorial judgment requires it. See our affiliate disclosure.

Medical scope

We are a publication. We are not a clinical service, a pharmacy, a prescriber, or a medical device. Nothing on the site constitutes medical, diagnostic, or treatment advice. Every page that touches a hormone or medication is framed in educational and product-feature terms, points the reader to a clinician for individualized decisions, and is labelled with the appropriate medical-review status (see medical review policy).

Escalation

If a reader, clinician, provider, or editor challenges a clinical claim, we re-check the claim against the source hierarchy above. If the issue involves safety, contraindications, prescribing, drug interactions, compounded medications, or clinical appropriateness, it is escalated to a qualified clinician before the claim is reaffirmed or materially changed. If no clinician is available for the claim, we either remove the disputed claim, narrow it, or label the uncertainty more clearly. All such decisions are documented and, if they result in a change to the published page, logged in corrections.

Conflict of interest

Editors and writers disclose financial relationships with any provider we cover. Anyone with a relevant relationship is recused from the relevant assignment. No editor or writer holds equity in any provider currently reviewed on the site.

Corrections

We acknowledge corrections received, verify them against source material, update the affected page with a visible “Updated: [date]” stamp, and log the correction at /corrections/.