Evidence review
Systematic review, critical appraisal and certainty-of-evidence methods.
Scientific integrity
Trust is built record by record
Credibility depends as much on governance as on design. These standards make the provenance, status and limits of every record visible.
Research standards
Registration, reporting guidelines, reproducibility and responsible research conduct.
Editorial standards
Authorship, peer review, conflicts of interest, verification, corrections and retractions.
Principles
What every record should make clear
Trace every claim
Records keep identifiers, publication details and links to the source, so readers can check the underlying work themselves.
Separate identity from quality
A genuine publication can still carry weak evidence. Verifying metadata is never an endorsement of quality.
Show uncertainty
Study design, status, access and limitations are described without overstating what the evidence supports.
Correct the record
Corrections, retractions and expressions of concern are shown openly, and the audit trail is kept.
Controls
Clinical and scientific risk controls
| Control | Expected practice |
|---|---|
| Medical disclaimer | Educational content is not individualised diagnosis or treatment. |
| Currency review | Clinical material carries review or update dates where appropriate. |
| Authorship | Real contributors and reviewers are named accurately. |
| Conflicts of interest | Relevant disclosures are recorded where required. |
| Corrections | Published corrections are visible rather than silently replacing important errors. |
| Research integrity | Methods, status and findings are not overstated. |
| Credentials | Degrees, titles and professional memberships are verified before publication. |
| Affiliations | No hospital, university, regulator or partner is implied without permission and evidence. |
Standards we use
The Evidence Review unit Key methods literature
CONSORT 2025 statement: updated guideline for reporting randomised trialsOPEN ACCESS
BMJ · DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2024-081123
2025
The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviewsOPEN ACCESS
BMJ · DOI: 10.1136/bmj.n71
2021
Treatment of stage I–III periodontitis—The EFP S3 level clinical practice guidelineOPEN ACCESS
Journal of Clinical Periodontology · DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.13290
2020
RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials
BMJ · DOI: 10.1136/bmj.l4898
2019
Report an issue with a record
If you find a metadata error, an undisclosed conflict, a duplicate, a correction or a retraction that affects a record, tell the integrity team and include the source.