Sources & methodology
Sources & methodology
Every AARO LAB scientific dossier is produced according to the same documentary workflow. This page describes how publications are selected, how contradictory findings are handled, how references are hierarchized, and how corrections and updates are managed.
Editorial workflow
- 1Scientific question
- 2Bibliographic search
- 3Critical appraisal
- 4Writing
- 5Validation
- 6Publication
- 7Periodic review
Selection criteria
- Methodological quality (design, sample size, blinding, randomization).
- Peer review (PubMed-indexed journals with verifiable editorial boards).
- Recency (recent publications, unless a foundational historical reference).
- Clinical relevance (study population close to the question at hand).
- Reproducibility (results confirmed by independent teams).
- Evidence level (meta-analysis > RCT > cohort > case series > preclinical).
Conflicts and hierarchy of references
When two publications disagree, we rank findings by evidence level. Meta-analyses and systematic reviews take precedence over individual studies. Learned-society guidelines (AUA, EAU, HAS, NICE, ESC) take precedence over primary literature when they exist. Preclinical and in-vitro findings never override human clinical data.
Persistent identifiers
- DOI — quoted for every peer-reviewed publication whenever available.
- PMID — cited for every PubMed-indexed reference.
- MeSH — used to align controlled thematic indexing across dossiers.
Correction and update policy
Any factual error is corrected as soon as it is identified. Substantive updates (new evidence, revised guidelines) are logged in the `dateModified` timestamp. Retracted publications are removed from references and, if central to the argument, the surrounding paragraph is rewritten.
Editor, funding and independence
- The Science Hub is edited and funded by AARO LAB, which also markets the food supplement TISSUVIA. This relationship is declared so that readers can interpret the content in full knowledge.
- Dossiers are prepared by the AARO LAB editorial team (“Rédaction AARO LAB”) from the sources cited. No individual clinical review by a named healthcare professional is currently displayed: any such review will only appear once formally established, with the reviewer's name, role and date.
- No dossier is written to attribute a therapeutic effect to TISSUVIA. Negative, insufficient or contradictory evidence is kept when it exists. References are not selected to support a formulation.
- TISSUVIA is a food supplement. It does not replace medical treatment or the advice of a healthcare professional.
Frequently asked questions
How are cited publications selected?
Every reference is retained on the basis of a combined evaluation: evidence level, methodological quality, clinical relevance and reproducibility. Learned-society guidelines take precedence over individual publications.
What happens when results are contradictory?
Results are ranked by evidence level. When they conflict, the most recent and highest-quality systematic review is authoritative. Residual uncertainty is explicitly mentioned in the dossier.
How often are dossiers updated?
Each dossier is reviewed at least once a year. An intermediate update is triggered whenever a meta-analysis, pivotal RCT or official guideline is released.
How can I report an error?
Any factual error can be reported via the Contact page. The correction is made promptly and the dossier's `dateModified` timestamp is updated.