1. Evidence Before Promotion
Editorial content is written to explain evidence rather than to reproduce promotional language. Claims about efficacy, safety, duration, formulation or product comparison should be supported by sources appropriate to the question.
2. Source Hierarchy
We generally prioritize sources in the following order according to the type of claim:
· Current official product information and regulatory sources for product identity, approved use, contraindications, warnings, storage and administration information.
· Peer-reviewed primary clinical research for study-specific efficacy and safety outcomes.
· Systematic reviews, consensus documents and high-quality secondary literature for broader scientific context.
· Other sources only when they add useful context and are clearly distinguished from higher-level evidence.
3. Claim-to-Evidence Matching
A citation at the end of a page is not enough if readers cannot determine what it supports. Important claims should be connected to the relevant source at the paragraph, section or structured evidence level whenever practical.
A finding from one indication is not automatically presented as evidence for another indication. A pediatric spasticity trial, for example, should not be used to imply efficacy in aesthetic facial treatment.
4. Neutral Product Language
BotoxWiki avoids unsupported terms such as “best,” “strongest,” “most natural,” “safest” or “longest lasting.” Product comparisons should identify the comparison method, evidence source, indication, dose or protocol where relevant, and the endpoint being compared.
Non-inferiority is described as non-inferiority. It is not rewritten as superiority, universal equivalence or proof that two products are interchangeable in every setting.
5. Funding and Conflict Disclosures
Manufacturer-sponsored research can contribute useful evidence, particularly in product development. Sponsorship does not automatically invalidate a study. When the source reports funding, author employment or another relevant conflict, BotoxWiki aims to disclose that context in the evidence summary.
6. Medical Review
Content involving medical interpretation, safety or product-specific clinical information may undergo review by a qualified healthcare professional. Reviewer names and qualifications are published only after a real review has occurred and permission to display the information has been confirmed.
7. AI-Assisted Editorial Work
Digital and AI-assisted tools may be used to support research organization, drafting, language editing or content structuring. These tools do not replace source verification or medical review. Published medical claims should remain traceable to the underlying evidence, regardless of which drafting tools were used.
8. Updates and Corrections
Pages may be revised when important new evidence, updated product information or a material correction becomes available. Substantive medical review dates should reflect an actual review of the content rather than a cosmetic page edit.
