Sources & Methodology
Every article on FootNeuropathy.com is grounded in authoritative medical sources. This page documents the sources we use, how we weigh evidence, and how we attribute claims throughout the site.
Key Takeaways
- We follow a clear evidence hierarchy, prioritizing systematic reviews.
- All major claims are attributed inline to a named source.
- We do not rely on anonymous blogs or anecdotal forum content.
- Conflicting evidence is presented honestly with uncertainty noted.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What evidence hierarchy does FootNeuropathy.com use?
- We prioritize systematic reviews and meta-analyses, followed by large randomized controlled trials, then clinical practice guidelines from major medical societies, then well-conducted observational studies, and finally expert opinion. Anecdotal reports and forum content are not used as primary sources.
- How do you handle conflicting evidence?
- When studies disagree, we describe the conflict honestly, note study quality differences, and where appropriate explain why guideline bodies favor one interpretation. We do not present uncertain conclusions as settled fact.
- Are anonymous blogs or forums used as sources?
- No. Anonymous blogs, social media posts, and forum threads are not used as evidence for clinical claims. They may be referenced descriptively when discussing patient experience or community resources, but never as the basis for medical guidance.
- How are claims attributed?
- Significant clinical claims are attributed inline to a named source — for example, a specific guideline, journal, or institutional reference. This allows readers and clinicians to verify the underlying evidence for any statement.