Our Research Methodology
PeriodTracker is dedicated to producing reliable, clinically verified menstrual health content. Here is a transparent breakdown of how our writers, researchers, and medical advisors gather evidence and maintain editorial integrity.
Peer-Reviewed Sources
Every health claim is anchored in literature indexed in PubMed, MEDLINE, or clinical databases. We do not source from commercial blogs or unverified health reports.
Clinical Authority
Our guidelines match consensus statements from organizations like the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), the World Health Organization (WHO), and the CDC.
Independent Review
Articles containing medical assertions are sent to certified medical professionals for rigorous checks prior to publication.
Our Content Integrity Protocol
1. Sourcing Hierarchy
When researching a topic, our writers utilize primary sources in the following priority:
- Tier 1: Systemic reviews, meta-analyses, and consensus guidelines (e.g., ACOG, WHO, NIH, CDC).
- Tier 2: Peer-reviewed observational studies and clinical trials with robust sample sizes.
- Tier 3: Established textbooks and statements from secondary accredited clinical boards.
2. Conflict of Interest Mitigation
All members of our advisory board must disclose any potential commercial bias. PeriodTracker does not accept sponsored reviews or product endorsements that influence editorial conclusions. Content recommendations are entirely research-driven.
3. Dynamic Auditing
Medical consensus updates as studies progress. We audit our active articles every 12 to 18 months, re-evaluating citations to match the latest consensus. Changes are recorded with both a "Last Updated" and "Last Reviewed" date stamp.