Editorial policy

Sources we use

We base medical statements on scientific literature indexed in PubMed, preferring systematic reviews, meta-analyses, guidelines (such as the European S3 guideline on androgenetic alopecia) and large randomised trials in established journals.

We also use information from authorities and professional bodies such as Swissmedic, the European Medicines Agency (EMA), the Swiss Federal Office of Public Health (FOPH) and the International Society of Hair Restoration Surgery (ISHRS).

We do not use blogs, clinic marketing or unverifiable testimonials as evidence.

How we cite

Key statements carry numbered references in the text. Each article ends with a full reference list linking to PubMed, the publisher (DOI) or the authority. Every source is checked against the PubMed database before publication, and we only report what the study actually shows.

Articles labelled 'Evidence review' are in-depth overviews with study tables and an assessment of how robust the findings are.

How we weigh evidence

Not every study carries the same weight. We rank meta-analyses and randomised controlled trials above observational studies, case series or lab findings. Where the data is thin or conflicting, we say so explicitly.

Updates

We review our articles regularly and whenever new guidelines, approvals or safety warnings appear. The 'Updated' date shows the last content review.

Independence and funding

HaarVergleich.ch is funded by forwarding enquiries to partner clinics. Medical content is written independently of this: no partner can influence statements on efficacy, risks or studies. How we rate clinics is explained in our methodology.

Report an error

Found a mistake or know of a newer study? Write to us at the address in the imprint. We check every report and correct errors promptly.