Editorial Policy

1) Our Editorial Mission

Eco Hormone Balance publishes educational, evidence-informed content on women’s hormonal wellness: PCOS, hormonal health, fertility, inositol, supplements, and the nutrition and habits that support them. Our job is to translate the available evidence into clear, practical guidance so readers can understand what is known, what is not, and how to make informed decisions — not to direct traffic to retailers.

• Readers come first. A product is never recommended unless the formula, evidence, and practical fit justify it.
• We distinguish fact from opinion, and evidence from marketing.
• Content is educational only and is not a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment.

2) Who Creates Our Content

Content is created and reviewed by the Eco Hormone Balance Editorial Team under a documented multidisciplinary review framework covering clinical, pharmacy, dietetics, evidence-appraisal, and supplement-quality criteria. The framework reflects how a team of specialists would approach a topic — it is an editorial standard, not a clinical team, and we never present it as one.

• Authors: articles carry a byline with the author or team name and the publication date.
• Editors: every article passes an editorial review covering structure, sources, claims, and balance.
• Expert contributors: if a qualified healthcare professional contributes or reviews content, their name and credentials are shown. We do not use fictional personas or invented credentials.
• “Medically reviewed” label: an article is labeled “medically reviewed” only when a qualified healthcare professional has actually reviewed the final content. No article on this site currently carries that label.

3) Medical Review

Some topics carry higher clinical stakes and are given priority review, with clinical callouts where relevant:

• PCOS treatment discussions
• Fertility, ovulation, and trying to conceive (TTC)
• Pregnancy and postpartum safety
• Medication interactions and comparisons involving pharmaceuticals
• Dosages, adverse effects, and contraindications
• Insulin resistance and metabolic claims
• Safety recommendations and populations who should avoid an approach

A medical review confirms that an article represents the available evidence appropriately. It does not create a doctor–patient relationship or provide personalized medical advice — see our Disclaimer.

4) How We Research Content

Every article follows the same documented workflow:

1. Topic selection based on a real reader question and search intent.
2. Research across primary sources: clinical guidelines, peer-reviewed studies, and official product information.
3. Primary-source verification — each study is opened on PubMed/PMC and its title, population, and conclusions are confirmed against what we plan to cite. (We do this because we have caught propagated citations pointing at the wrong papers.)
4. Product research for reviews: official label, manufacturer documentation, certifications, retailer listings, and buyer feedback patterns.
5. Drafting in plain language, with claims separated from context and limitations.
6. Fact-checking against the standards in Section 6.
7. Editorial review of structure, sourcing, and balance.
8. Medical review when a qualified clinician is involved (currently none published).
9. Publication with byline and dates (Section 17).
10. Monitoring and updates on the cadence in Section 16.

5) Evidence Standards

We rely on the strongest available source for the question being answered. The best source for a dosing question is not necessarily the best source for a recall notice — we match the source to the claim.

• Clinical guidance: professional clinical guidelines, government and public-health agencies, and regulatory agencies.
• Scientific evidence: systematic reviews and meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials, prospective and observational studies, and mechanistic research where relevant.
• Product facts: official supplement labels, manufacturer documentation, certification bodies, and laboratory certificates when available.
• Secondary sources: used only to contextualize, never as the primary basis for a medical claim.

In our articles we label the strength of the evidence honestly:

• Solid evidence: consistent, well-conducted meta-analyses and RCTs.
• Promising but limited: small, short, or mixed studies.
• Preliminary hypotheses: plausible mechanisms with early data.
• Unsupported commercial claims: marketing presented without adequate support.

Every outcome claim carries its source, and we state what a study does not show (for example, when no study of live birth in anovulation exists). Where evidence conflicts, we present the uncertainty rather than picking a side.

6) Fact-Checking Standards

“Fact-checked” has a specific meaning here:

• Medical claims are checked against the original study or guideline (PMID/DOI opened and confirmed), not against abstracts or secondary summaries.
• Dosages are checked against the studied dose and population, and presented as studied — not as instructions.
• Product ingredients are checked against the manufacturer’s current label.
• Certifications are checked against the certifying body.
• Retailer and Amazon listings are treated as market information, never as scientific evidence.
• Prices are marked as variable and shown with the date we checked them.
• Availability is dated, and sold-out or discontinued notices are updated.

7) Ingredient Evidence vs Product Evidence

We distinguish between evidence for an ingredient or formulation and evidence for a specific commercial product. Research on myo-inositol, D-chiro-inositol, or a 40:1 combination is never presented as proof that a particular brand produces the same clinical outcomes unless that specific product was studied. Manufacturer claims are reported as claims, not as evidence.

8) Product Review Methodology

Our product reviews are desk-research reviews. Each one is built from the official product page, at least two independent market sources (retailers, marketplaces, or forums with real volume), and at least one scientific source relevant to the category.

We evaluate products on:

• Formula and ratio against the studied evidence
• Daily dose and serving burden
• Third-party testing and certifications
• Unnecessary additives or ingredients that complicate the formula
• Price per day, with the check date shown
• Availability in the markets we cover
• Safety, interactions, and who should ask a clinician first
• Manufacturer transparency
• Repeated positive and negative patterns in real buyer feedback

Ratings weigh formula clarity, fit for the problem a product claims to address, strength of the evidence, likely tolerability, serving burden, price-to-value, and how the product positions against alternatives. Ratings are our editorial judgment — they are never a copy of an Amazon score.

We do not independently lab-test products. When a review says a product is “clinically studied” or “evidence-based,” it means the ingredient or formulation has supporting evidence — not that we have tested the product ourselves.

9) Tested vs Researched Products

We use three honest labels, and every review states which one applies:

• Personally tested: we purchased or received the product and physically evaluated it (label, format, taste/mixing where relevant).
• Independently researched: we reviewed the official label, manufacturer information, certifications, published evidence, and retailer feedback, but did not personally use the product.
• Manufacturer sample: the product was supplied by the manufacturer; this is always disclosed.

To date, our published reviews are independently researched (desk-research) reviews. We do not claim first-hand experience with a product unless a review explicitly states it.

10) How We Choose “Best” Products

“Best” is context-specific. When we name a product “best overall,” “best powder,” “best capsules,” “best value,” or “best simple formula,” we explain the criteria behind that specific category and why the product wins it. We do not create artificial categories to include more products, and no ranking is determined by commission rates.

11) Affiliate Relationships & Editorial Independence

Eco Hormone Balance is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program and other affiliate programs. As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases. Affiliate links are marked rel="sponsored" and disclosed near the link, not only in the footer.

Editorial independence is governed by fixed principles:

• Affiliate relationships do not determine whether a product is included in an article.
• Higher commission rates never result in higher rankings.
• A product can receive a critical review even when an affiliate relationship exists.
• Products without affiliate programs can still be recommended when editorially appropriate.
• Affiliate availability is not evidence of product quality.
• We never accept payment for inclusion, ranking, or a positive review.

12) Sponsored Content

We currently do not publish sponsored posts or paid rankings. If we ever do, the content will be clearly labeled as sponsored, sponsorship will never guarantee a positive recommendation, and sponsored placements will not enter editorial rankings unless they independently meet the same selection criteria as editorial picks.

13) Artificial Intelligence & Automation

AI-assisted tools may be used in our workflow — for example, to organize research, identify questions to investigate, help with drafting and language editing, summarize source material for editorial review, or automate routine tasks.

• AI is not treated as a medical authority or a primary source.
• Every scientific claim and citation is checked against the original source before publication.
• AI does not determine product rankings.
• Final editorial responsibility rests with the named author and the editorial team.

14) Conflicts of Interest

Authors and editors disclose relevant financial or personal relationships — including affiliate relationships, sponsored arrangements, manufacturer samples, or employment — before publication. We do not accept payment for editorial placement or rankings. Where a conflict could bias a decision, the person with the conflict does not decide.

15) Corrections

• Minor corrections (typos, formatting, broken links) are fixed without a public note.
• Material corrections — an incorrect dosage, a misinterpreted study, a wrong ingredient, a wrong certification, an incorrect product formulation, or a materially wrong ranking justification — are corrected with a timestamped note describing the change:

16) Content Updates

We update content when something that matters actually changes:

• A major clinical guideline or relevant systematic review is published
• A safety alert or regulatory action is issued
• A product formula, certification, or listing changes
• A product is discontinued or a clearly better alternative appears
• A claim is no longer supported by the evidence

High-impact pages are re-reviewed at least annually. Product details, prices, and availability are rechecked roughly every 90 days. We update dates only when the content actually changes — we do not refresh dates to make pages look newer than they are.

17) Dates on Our Articles

• Published: when the article was first published.
• Last updated: when the article was materially revised.
• Evidence & product details rechecked [date]: shown on guides and linked to this policy, stating what was rechecked and when.
• Product details and prices checked [date]: shown in product comparisons and reviews, with the caveat that prices vary by retailer and over time.

18) Inclusion, Accessibility & Tone

• We write in plain language and avoid stigmatizing terms.
• We respect privacy and never share readers’ health situations.
• We consider diverse experiences across age, culture, and health contexts where relevant.
• Pages are designed for readability on mobile and assistive technologies.

19) Reader Feedback

If you believe a medical claim, citation, product formula, dosage, or other factual statement is incorrect, contact us with the article URL and the information you believe needs review. We review every message and respond where appropriate.

20) Related Policies

• Disclaimer — limitations of our content and affiliate disclosure
• Privacy Policy — how we handle personal data
• Cookie Policy — cookies and consent
• Affiliate Disclosure — how affiliate links work

21) Contact

Email: Contact us • Learn more about our team: Editorial Team • Disclaimer • Guides