How the guidance is reviewed.

Editorial method

Skinlogie publishes targeted narrative summaries of named sources. It does not present these pages as systematic reviews, clinical practice guidelines, or individualized recommendations.

Current source base

What the current references contain.

Guidelines and professional guidance

Current use: The current source lists use public guidance from professional dermatology organizations and direct clinical-guideline pages where they are relevant.

Limitation: These pages summarize recommendations for the public but are not a substitute for appraising the underlying guideline or complete research literature.

Public-health and regulator information

Current use: NHS pages are used for public-care pathways. Health Canada and U.S. Food and Drug Administration pages are used for product authorization, safety advisories, and regulatory warnings.

Limitation: Regulatory status, product availability, and wording differ by country and can change over time.

Systematic reviews and research literature

Current use: Selected systematic reviews and peer-reviewed reviews are included when they clarify effectiveness, uncertainty, harms, study duration, or the limits of a treatment claim.

How they are cited: A review is cited as one named source, at one specific version. Reviews are revised over time and their numbers change when they are, so each one is pinned to its published version and checked against the live record; when a newer version appears, the text is re-read against it before the page changes. Skinlogie does not combine reviews with each other, or with the trial index, to produce a score or a ranking.

Limitation: Study quality and methods vary. The guides remain targeted narrative summaries; the source sets are not comprehensive searches and Skinlogie does not assign a formal certainty grade.

Evidence grades

What the grades mean.

Every treatment option on a guide’s scoreboard carries one of four grades. The grade scores how directly and reliably the cited evidence supports that option for that concern. It is not a measure of how big the benefit is, and it is separate from the verdict (try first, works, situational, skip), which is the practical advice.

• Strong. Randomised controlled trials of this option for this concern: pooled in a systematic review, more than one trial, or a single large trial of 500 people or more. The row cites the review or the trials directly.
• Moderate. At least one randomised trial for this concern, a formal clinical guideline recommendation, or strong randomised evidence on a closely related concern or outcome. The row cites the trial, guideline, or review.
• Limited. Only small, indirect, or observational evidence, or professional guidance with no trial behind it.
• Caution. Documented harm, or no evidence of benefit together with a safety concern. These options are listed so a reader knows why to skip them.

Under each grade the scoreboard states what it is made of: how many trials, how many people, the year of the strongest source, and whether the trials were run by the product’s maker, with a link to the review or trial itself. These fields are checked when the site is built: a “strong” grade that does not cite a trial or a review fails the build, and every number in an option’s expected-change line must appear in a quoted sentence from a cited source. Grades were re-scored against these rules on 4 September 2026. Where the cited evidence did not meet the rule, the grade was lowered rather than the rule relaxed.

Editorial checks

Questions applied to each guide.

• What exactly is the claim, and is it medical or cosmetic?

• Which population, condition subtype, and outcome does the evidence cover?

• Does regional prescription or product status change the advice?

• What are the important harms, exclusions, and reasons to seek care?

• Can a reader reach the authoritative source directly?

• Is each key point, paragraph, option, warning, and answer linked to the source that supports it?

• Is the wording proportionate—without cure claims, guarantees, or false precision?

Reader experience

Engagement should help a reader act—not keep them scrolling.

Guides put the short answer first, break choices into specific steps, and offer an optional three-decision plan: choose one starting point, set a realistic review date, and check the signs that warrant stopping or seeking help. Progress feedback, device-local saving, printing, and calendar export are optional.

This approach follows U.S. Department of Health and Human Services guidance on actionable, plain-language health information and interactive tools. It is also consistent with a systematic review that found goal setting, self-monitoring, feedback, and prompts were repeatedly associated with engagement in mobile health apps. That review could not establish which technique works best in every context, so Skinlogie does not use streaks, pressure, or completion claims.

• HHS Health Literacy Online: actionable and engaging health information
• Systematic review of behaviour-change techniques and digital health engagement

Scope boundary

General information is not individualized care.

The guides describe common patterns, supportive care, treatment categories, and reasons to seek assessment. They do not diagnose, select prescription treatment, or replace a clinician who knows the reader’s history.

Who writes the guides

Personal experience explains the interest—not the evidence.

Patrick and Michelle write every Skinlogie guide together. Their interest in skin conditions grew from their own skincare journeys and years of comparing ingredients, products, prices, and claims.

Their names identify who wrote the guide. Personal experience does not substitute for evidence or individualized advice; material claims must remain traceable to cited sources and their limitations.

Product boundary

Ingredient evidence is not a finished-product guarantee.

Strength, formulation, packaging, stability, contact time, and study population affect performance. Labels such as “non-comedogenic” or “clinically proven” are product-specific claims, not conclusions inferred from an ingredient list. When a guide names a practical-value example, selection is based on a relevant active or practical function, availability in the reader’s market, tolerability, and a useful format—not reviews, sponsorship, or an assumption that the brand is superior. The customer comparison page does not rank the mixed catalog. It publishes a comparison only when products answer a similar customer question and have enough reliable formula, label, format, package, and evidence-boundary data. Every comparison shows what matches, what differs, and whether the finished product itself has been studied. A lower-cost option can be discussed as an editorial consideration, but cost does not establish equivalence or effectiveness. Skinlogie does not publish copied retailer prices or use them to name a winner. Where an exact Amazon listing has been verified for a reader’s market, the reader can use it for the current local price and availability. Historical price records retain their original retailer, seller, package, market, and observation-date provenance; they are not relabeled as Amazon prices or presented as current offers. Products without enough reliable formula, label, and evidence-boundary data remain out of comparisons until that information is available.

Medical claims

Supportive care is not described as treatment.

An ordinary cosmetic can be described as moisturizing or softening dry skin. It should not be described as treating eczema, psoriasis, inflammation, or infection unless it is authorized and labelled for that use.

Funding and conflicts of interest

Current disclosures.

• Skinlogie participates in the Amazon Associates programs for Canada and the United States. As an Amazon Associate, Skinlogie earns from qualifying purchases, at no extra cost to the reader. The site carries no advertising, sponsored content, or paid product placement, and no brand pays to appear.
• Product purchase actions use only exact Amazon listings verified independently for Canada and the United States. A Canadian ASIN is never rewritten as an American listing, generic Amazon searches are never offered, and the action is omitted where an exact local listing has not been verified. Brand pages can still appear as formula or evidence sources, but not as purchase buttons. Affiliate status never affects inclusion, ordering, evidence interpretation, or conclusions.
• The Amazon page supplies its current local price and availability. Skinlogie does not copy or relabel static marketplace prices. Until an approved Amazon Creators API offer feed is available, numeric product prices and price-derived winners are withheld; calculators accept a price the reader enters from the exact listing.
• The customer product page does not publish an overall leaderboard. It groups products only into same-purpose comparisons and preserves the trade-offs within each checked set. Price, reviews, popularity, and affiliate status do not create a cross-category rank.
• Amazon prices, availability, sellers, package sizes, and formulas change. Before buying, a reader should check the current price and seller on the exact local Amazon listing, plus the current product label, authorization number where applicable, and expiry.
• No payment or registration is required to read a condition guide or its references.
• Any relevant funding, financial relationship, manufacturer relationship, or other material conflict must be disclosed on the affected page.
• Contributor declaration (4 September 2026). Patrick and Michelle declare that they have no employment, shareholding, consultancy, or payment from any skincare, cosmetic, or pharmaceutical company or retailer. The site’s only commercial relationship is the Amazon Associates purchase links described above. Grades, ordering, and data are determined by the cited evidence alone.
• The site does not yet publish a complete statement of ownership, operating funding, contributor compensation, or final editorial control. This is a current disclosure limitation.
• The organizations cited in the references have not reviewed or endorsed Skinlogie.

Automated source data

Separate rules govern the living evidence index.

The Evidence Coverage Index processes selected ClinicalTrials.gov fields on a versioned schedule. Automated counts remain separate from editorial interpretation, and every published percentage shows its numerator and denominator.

A guide can show treatment and comparison bars only when the submitted treatment group, patient outcome, time point, and comparator can be matched without guesswork. The display follows the versioned record order and keeps every safely mapped patient outcome from the selected record; it does not choose whichever number is largest or favourable. Exact values and group sizes remain visible, and a missing usable comparison produces no chart.

These are individual submitted results, not pooled estimates, treatment rankings, or predictions for a reader. The index does not grade treatments, infer overall effectiveness, or treat missing demographic data as absence of a population.

Read the full index methodology

Updates and corrections

Review dates and corrections.

A source-review date is changed only after the cited sources and material claims are reassessed. If a substantive correction is made, the page is corrected and its updated date changes.

Standalone evidence-linked articles publish an editorial record with authorship, publication date, commercial disclosure, review status, and an initial revision entry. From 4 September 2026, each guide also publishes a dated revision history of substantive changes (a factual claim, a number, a citation, an evidence grade, or safety framing) alongside its source-review date. The automated evidence index keeps a separate versioned change ledger. Errors can be reported through the corrections policy or contact page.