Where our information comes from.
Every health claim on BodyFinds traces to the evidence hierarchy below. This page names the source categories we draw on, explains our grading system, and tells you how to flag a citation that needs attention.
Our evidence hierarchy
Not all evidence is equal. When developing health content, BodyFinds prioritizes sources in this order:
- Systematic reviews and meta-analyses — pooled analyses of multiple trials (e.g., Cochrane reviews).
- Randomized controlled trials — where appropriate to the question asked.
- Clinical practice guidelines from recognized professional organizations.
- Government health agencies and major medical institutions — NIH, CDC, FDA, WHO and equivalents.
- Blogs, manufacturer pages, and product marketing are never primary evidence for medical claims on our pages.
Categories we draw on
The authorities below appear across BodyFinds pages — in the source lists of guided journeys, the guideline references of condition pages, and the provenance fields of our nutrition tools.
Government & public health
Primary references for nutrient fact sheets, disease fact pages, and safety communications.
Research databases
Where the primary literature is searched, read, and cited.
Clinical guidelines & societies
The consensus documents that define standard care for conditions we cover.
Peer-reviewed journals
Where landmark trials and pooled analyses are published.
Safety & product databases
Specialized references for interactions, toxicity, and product quality.
Food & nutrition data
The reference data behind our food and nutrient explorer tools.
How we grade evidence
Evidence chapters on BodyFinds display a dashboard for each intervention, grading it on the dimensions that matter: number of meta-analyses, RCTs, and total studies; a consensus rating; and a plain-language verdict — strong, moderate, or limited.
Where trials disagree, we say the evidence is mixed. Where an effect exists only in a subgroup (for example, vitamin D and respiratory infections in people with documented deficiency), the subgroup is the claim — not the general population.
- A strong mechanism is never presented as proof of outcome.
- Small regional trials are flagged as such, not pooled silently into confidence.
- Null results are reported — a trial showing no benefit draws a boundary, and we keep it.
- Popular supplements with weak evidence are labeled weak, whatever their reputation.
How citations appear
Guided journeys and topic pages carry a Sources strip linking the authorities behind the page, with an authority tag (government, institution, journal, database). Condition and supplement pages list guideline references in their metadata, display review dates, and cite specific trials — with population, finding, and stated limitation — inside their evidence chapters.
Pages state a review date only when an actual editorial review occurred. We do not refresh dates cosmetically on rebuilds. Where a page has not received medical review, it says so — we never fabricate reviewers, credentials, or affiliations.
Corrections
Found a factual error, a broken citation, or something misleading? Tell us — we take corrections seriously and update pages when warranted. Reach us through our contact page (choose “Content correction” or “Source/reference issue”), and include the page and the claim in question.