Editorial standards

How we research, write and correct our content

Last updated: 22 October 2026

Evidence-based is easy to say. The real test is whether readers can see where a claim came from, how strong the evidence is, what remains uncertain and whether a commercial interest is involved.

These standards explain how iGlowly approaches that work.

Our editorial promise

We aim to publish content that is accurate, useful and honest about its limits.

That means:

• we do not turn uncertain evidence into certainty;
• we distinguish plausible mechanisms from demonstrated results;
• we report meaningful risks and limitations, not only potential benefits;
• we identify relevant commercial interests;
• we correct substantive mistakes openly;
• we never treat popularity, repetition or confident marketing as proof.

We would rather leave a question partly unanswered than give it a certainty the evidence does not support.

What these standards cover

These standards apply across iGlowly, although different types of content require different methods.

Patient information and iGlowly Insights

Our patient-facing content examines aesthetic treatments, devices, skincare, safety, ethics, psychology and the gap between evidence and marketing.

Its purpose is to help readers ask better questions—not to tell an individual what treatment to choose.

iGlowly Pro Insights

Our professional content covers clinic websites, patient communication, privacy, regulation, digital tools, AI and practice growth.

Some articles discuss products or services provided by iGlowly. When our commercial interests are relevant, they should be clear to the reader.

Country-specific regulatory articles are researched using legislation, regulators and professional guidance available at the time of publication. They are general information, not legal advice.

iGlowly Research

iGlowly Research publishes original reports, audits and datasets.

Research reports should explain their scope, methods, definitions, sample, limitations, quality checks, calculations and relevant conflicts of interest. Supporting data or calculation files are published when this is possible without exposing personal or commercially sensitive information.

iGlowly Research is independently published by iGlowly. It should not be described as peer-reviewed academic research unless it has undergone an identifiable external peer-review process.

Directory profiles

Clinic and practitioner profiles are compiled from public professional sources and, where applicable, information supplied by the clinic or practitioner.

We distinguish factual verification from endorsement. A verified name, qualification, registration or address does not mean that iGlowly guarantees the quality or outcome of a practitioner’s work.

Clinics and practitioners may request corrections to factual information. Payment must not buy a more favourable editorial assessment, a positive review or a higher evidence-based ranking.

Partner features

Partner features are commercial collaborations. They are covered separately below because readers should never have to guess when money or another material relationship is involved.

Company announcements

Press releases, product announcements and service updates are communications from iGlowly about iGlowly. They are not presented as independent reporting.

Who is responsible

Every editorial article should identify who wrote it and when it was published.

A byline from iGlowly Insights means the article was produced by iGlowly’s internal editorial team. It does not imply review or approval by an unnamed panel of external doctors.

Overall editorial responsibility lies with Nathalie Guribashvili, Founder & Editor. Nathalie has a medical background and more than 20 years of experience in technology. Her role on iGlowly is editorial and research-led; it is not a personal medical consultation.

If an article receives external clinical, scientific or legal review, the reviewer should be named and the nature of that review explained. We do not use “medically reviewed” as a general badge when no identifiable review has taken place.

How we research a question

A typical evidence-based article involves five stages:

1. Define the question. We establish what the article can reasonably answer and what falls outside its scope.
2. Find the underlying evidence. We look for original studies, systematic reviews, regulatory documents, professional guidance and other primary sources.
3. Assess the evidence in context. We consider study design, sample size, duration, comparison groups, outcome measures, funding and conflicts of interest.
4. Separate evidence from interpretation. We identify what a source demonstrates, what it only suggests and what remains editorial analysis.
5. Review the finished article. Material claims, figures, references and disclosures are checked before publication.

The process may vary for a research report, directory profile or practical guide, but the underlying principle does not: a source must support the claim for which it is being used.

Which sources we prefer

We prioritise:

• systematic reviews and meta-analyses;
• well-designed randomised and controlled trials;
• peer-reviewed clinical and laboratory research;
• official legislation and regulatory documents;
• recognised clinical or professional guidance;
• public professional registers;
• technical documentation and filings;
• original datasets and clearly described first-party research.

A peer-reviewed paper is not automatically reliable, and one study rarely settles a question. We consider how the research was designed, whether its conclusions match its results and whether other evidence points in the same direction.

Manufacturer materials may be appropriate for specifications, instructions, prices or the manufacturer’s own claims. They are not treated as independent proof that a product works.

News reports, brand websites and social media may be used to document a public claim, marketing trend or controversy. They are not used as clinical evidence of effectiveness or safety.

How we judge evidence

When reviewing a study, we ask:

• Was it conducted in people, animals, tissue or a laboratory model?
• Was there a control or meaningful comparison?
• How many people took part?
• Was the sample representative of the people to whom the claim is being marketed?
• How long were participants followed?
• Were the outcomes clinically meaningful or limited to a laboratory measurement?
• Were results assessed by patients, clinicians, photographs, instruments or the manufacturer?
• Were assessors blinded?
• Who funded the work?
• Did the authors report financial or professional conflicts?
• Have the findings been replicated?

Industry funding does not automatically invalidate a study. It does increase the need to examine its design, reporting and conclusions carefully.

How we describe uncertainty

Our wording should reflect the strength of the evidence.

We distinguish between:

• association and causation;
• biological plausibility and demonstrated patient benefit;
• statistical significance and a result that matters in practice;
• evidence that something does not work and an absence of adequate evidence;
• regulatory clearance, regulatory approval and proof of clinical superiority;
• a result from one product and a claim about an entire category.

When evidence is preliminary, indirect, conflicting or missing, we say so.

“Promising” does not mean proven. “FDA cleared” does not mean “FDA approved”. A measurable difference does not necessarily mean a visible or worthwhile result.

Medical benefits, risks and limitations

Coverage of an aesthetic treatment or device should not describe benefits in isolation.

Where relevant, we include:

• what the treatment is intended to do;
• the strength and limits of the evidence;
• realistic outcomes;
• recovery and maintenance;
• common side effects;
• important risks and contraindications;
• uncertainty about long-term effects;
• who may need individual medical advice before proceeding.

We avoid fear-based language, but we do not minimise risk to make a treatment sound more attractive.

Facts, figures, prices and comparisons

Material figures should be traceable to a named source or a clearly explained calculation.

Where relevant, we report:

• the denominator behind a percentage;
• absolute figures, not only relative changes;
• the date or period to which a number applies;
• the population and conditions in which it was measured;
• important exclusions or missing data.

Prices are time-sensitive. Unless explicitly stated otherwise, published prices are indicative and may change. A clinic or practitioner confirms the final cost after assessing the individual patient.

Product and service comparisons should use stated criteria. We do not adjust those criteria retrospectively to produce a preferred winner.

Commercial independence

iGlowly is both a publisher and a commercial business. It provides digital products and services for aesthetic clinics. That relationship is relevant whenever we report on clinic websites, patient-information tools, AI assistants or competing products.

Commercial activity does not remove the need for editorial coverage. It does require clear disclosure and fair treatment of alternatives.

Our rules are:

• we do not sell editorial conclusions;
• we do not sell positive reviews;
• we do not sell favourable research findings;
• we do not sell rankings disguised as independent recommendations;
• clients and partners do not receive more favourable evidence standards;
• a commercial relationship must be disclosed where a reasonable reader would consider it relevant.

If iGlowly introduces affiliate links or another commission-based relationship, that relationship will be identified clearly near the relevant link or recommendation.

Partner features

A partner feature is paid-for editorial content produced in collaboration with a brand, laboratory or technology company.

It must:

• be labelled Partner Feature at the beginning of the article; the label is clickable and links to the terms for editorial partnerships;
• identify the partner and explain the nature of the relationship;
• be researched and written by iGlowly;
• use the same evidence standards as non-partner editorial content;
• distinguish independent research from manufacturer data;
• include relevant limitations, risks and unfavourable evidence;
• reject unsupported medical claims;
• remain under iGlowly’s editorial control.

A partner may check factual information about its own product or organisation. It may not choose the evidence, suppress relevant criticism, dictate the conclusion or purchase a positive verdict.

Payment funds the work. It does not buy the answer.

We do not accept pre-written guest posts presented as iGlowly editorial content.

If a product has been personally tested, we explain what was tested and for how long where that experience is relevant. Personal experience may help assess usability; it cannot establish clinical effectiveness.

More information is available on our Editorial partnerships page.

Our own research

Original iGlowly research should make it possible for a careful reader to understand how a result was produced.

Reports should include, where applicable:

• the research question and scope;
• sample-selection rules;
• data-collection dates;
• the codebook or assessment criteria;
• definitions and denominators;
• manual and automated quality checks;
• exclusions and missing data;
• limitations;
• relevant commercial interests;
• version information and material revisions;
• supporting data and calculation files.

We do not imply that an audit measures more than it was designed to measure. For example, a review of information visible on a clinic website does not assess the clinic’s clinical quality.

Software and AI-assisted tools

We may use software and AI-assisted tools to help search, organise, compare, draft or translate material.

These tools are not treated as sources. They do not receive authorship or editorial responsibility, and their output is not accepted as evidence.

Material factual claims and references are checked against the underlying source by the person responsible for the article. The named author or editor remains accountable for the published work.

When translations are published, the aim is to preserve the meaning, figures, uncertainty and disclosures of the source version—not merely its wording.

Updates and corrections

A publication date tells readers when an article first appeared. A “last updated” date should change only when the content has been meaningfully reviewed or revised, not after an invisible cosmetic edit.

We handle corrections according to their significance:

• Minor corrections, such as spelling, formatting or a broken link, may be made without a correction note.
• Substantive corrections that change a fact, interpretation, figure, safety statement or conclusion are identified in an update note.
• Major errors that undermine the article may require a prominent correction, replacement or withdrawal.

Older articles may not reflect the latest evidence, prices or regulations. Dates are part of the information readers should consider.

To report a possible error, email hello@iglowly.com with the page link, the passage concerned and, if possible, the supporting source. We review good-faith correction requests regardless of whether they come from a reader, clinician, researcher, clinic, brand or competitor.

Information, not individual advice

iGlowly provides general educational information. It does not diagnose, prescribe or determine whether a treatment is appropriate for a particular person.

Online information cannot account for an individual’s medical history, anatomy, medication, expectations or examination. Personal decisions about treatment should be made with a suitably qualified professional.

Contact

Questions about these standards, editorial disclosures or corrections can be sent to:

hello@iglowly.com