How we research. How we review.
Our editorial standards explain what our reviews assess, how we use sources, and where our conclusions stop.
Start with the source
For prices, formats, and service details, we use the provider’s own published information. For medical and regulatory context, we prioritize official regulatory sources, clinical guidelines, and relevant published research. Source lists are included with the articles.
Separate facts from judgments
A published price is a provider statement. Whether the offer is worth a closer look is an editorial judgment. We distinguish both from a medical recommendation, which requires an individual clinical evaluation.
Make uncertainty visible
If the reviewed page does not name a pharmacy, publish a medication quantity, or explain the full cost, we say so. Missing information is not proof of a defect; it is a reason to ask before committing.
No invented experience or scores
Our launch reviews are research-based, not patient diaries. We do not claim to have ordered, used, laboratory-tested, or medically evaluated a provider’s medication. We do not assign numerical ratings that imply measured clinical performance.
Dates mean a real revision
Articles show a Month Year revision date. We change it when the content is substantively reviewed or updated, not simply because the calendar changes. Provider details can change between reviews, so the current written quote remains important.
Commercial relationships
Affiliate partnerships influence the providers covered on the site. They do not turn an advertised claim into a demonstrated fact. Our current two-provider comparison is explicitly identified as a comparison of partners, not an exhaustive best-of ranking.
Corrections
If you spot an error, send the page URL, the specific statement, and supporting information to editor@sermorelinhub.com. We evaluate corrections against the source and revise the article when warranted.
Revised October 2026.