Editorial standards

Every page on this site follows the same rules about sourcing, certainty and review. They are published here so you can hold us to them.

Sources

We work from national health guidance and published research: the NHS, NICE, the British National Formulary, Cochrane reviews, peer-reviewed studies indexed on PubMed, and recognised sleep organisations. Sources are listed at the foot of each article and cited close to the claim they support.

We never invent a study, a statistic, a clinical result or a quotation. If a claim cannot be traced to a source we can name, it does not appear.

Handling uncertainty

Sleep research is uneven. Some questions — how light shifts the body clock, for example — rest on decades of consistent work. Others come from small or short studies, and some genuinely depend on the individual. We say which is which in the text rather than flatten everything into confident advice.

What we do not publish

• Doses, timing schedules or personal treatment instructions.
• Diagnoses, or language that implies we know what is happening to you.
• Claims about products, or comparisons between brands.

Review and dates

Each article carries its publication date. A “last reviewed” date appears only when an editor has genuinely re-read the piece against current sources and confirmed or changed it — we do not refresh dates to look current.

Articles on fast-moving or safety-sensitive subjects are queued for review first. Where a piece has been checked by a qualified health professional, that reviewer is named on the page.

Corrections

If you think something here is wrong, out of date or unclear, tell us on the contact page. We would rather correct a page than defend it.

Independence

The one commercial link on the site points to BIOVEA’s UK melatonin range, for readers who have decided they want to look at products. It has no influence on what any article says, and no article recommends a purchase as a solution to a sleep problem.