Methodology & Editorial Policy

Source selection

BiomedFacts prioritises reliable scientific sources that are appropriate for the question being examined.

Depending on the topic, sources may include peer-reviewed scientific studies, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, randomised controlled trials, large and well-designed observational studies, official guidelines, as well as reports and data from recognised scientific, regulatory and public organisations.

The choice of evidence depends on the specific question being addressed. Not all studies carry the same evidential weight, and a single finding is not automatically treated as definitive proof.

How we evaluate a study

When new research is discussed, the final result is not considered in isolation.

Factors considered include the study design, the size and characteristics of the sample, the presence of a control group, the duration of the study, the outcomes measured, the statistical and clinical significance of the findings, potential confounding factors, limitations identified by the researchers, and whether the findings are consistent with the wider body of evidence.

Particular attention is given to the distinction between correlation and causation. An observational association is not presented as evidence that one factor causes another.

Fact-checking health claims

When examining a claim circulating in the media or on social media, the first step is to define precisely what the claim is actually saying.

The best available evidence is then identified and compared with the way the claim is being presented publicly.

The analysis considers whether the evidence genuinely supports the claim, whether results have been taken out of context, whether research conducted in animals or cells is being presented as proof of an effect in humans, whether an association is being presented as causation, whether a small or preliminary finding is being presented as an established scientific conclusion, and whether important limitations have been omitted.

The purpose of fact-checking is not simply to label a claim as “true” or “false”, but to explain what we know, what we do not know and how much certainty the available evidence allows.

Preliminary research and preprints

Studies that have not yet undergone peer review may be discussed when they are relevant to an important or emerging topic.

In these cases, it is made clear that the findings are preliminary and they are not treated with the same level of certainty as published, peer-reviewed research.

Sources and transparency

Whenever possible, the main scientific sources are provided within the article or at the end of it so that readers can examine the evidence and access the original research.

When a study has important limitations, these are highlighted rather than omitted simply because they may weaken a more striking headline or narrative.

Corrections and updates

Scientific knowledge evolves, and published content may require updating as new evidence becomes available.

If a substantive factual error is identified, the content is corrected as soon as reasonably possible.

When a change significantly affects the original meaning or conclusion of an article, the correction is made transparently and, where appropriate, the article indicates that it has been updated.

Minor corrections involving grammar, spelling or formatting may be made without a separate correction notice.

Scientific uncertainty

The absence of a definitive answer is itself part of science.

When evidence is limited, conflicting or of low quality, this is stated clearly. BiomedFacts does not present uncertainty as certainty and does not use absolute language when the scientific literature does not justify it.

Health information, not personalised medical advice

BiomedFacts content is intended for informational and educational purposes.

It does not replace assessment by a healthcare professional and does not provide personalised diagnosis, treatment or medical advice.