Healthcanal

Editorial Process

Our Expert Writers

Our writers adhere to the standards and provide us with content that is well-researched and informative. We always try to train writers to write a wide range of articles, understand the content structure, follow the guideline very well, and create their content that ranks on the top page. We let them have space to create their own content based on a given topic; however, we train them with standard guidelines and provide feedback to enhance the qualification.

Our Editorial Team

Health Canal’s contents are made up of licensed professionals with long experience in healthcare topics. Each piece of information is reviewed and fact-checked to ensure the exact information and accuracy. 

Medical Disclaimer

All of our content on Healthcanal.com is made and published online merely for informational purposes – not advice. The content should not be considered as health or personal advice and can not replace any professional medical advice. There are no warranties applied with any medical information published on this website. In case that users suffer from risks due to the reliance upon the information, the website owner will not accept liability for any damage.

Health Canal does not create external links to academic resources you see on this website. We are not responsible for any claims of external academic citation you see on this website. 

Style & Voice

We strictly follow Associated Press (AP) style to provide consistent guidelines for many types of publications.

We also create a writing style that is friendly and simple yet guiding, keeping the content accurate, current and comprehensive. We use the right word choice that matches healthcare topics, turning complex health definitions into easy-to-follow concepts.

Our Process

Every piece of information will be from deep research and created by our health professional team. 

Primary resources are always a priority, from studies, academic research institutions, government organizations to clinical associations. Health Canal always tries its best to provide high-quality and accurate information to the audience. 

After taking a deep insight into the topic, our expert writers will create the content based on academic research and personal knowledge. We have strict standards applied to the writing process. 

Health Canal’s content is then thoroughly reviewed and fact-checked by a team of medical professionals to guarantee all facts and useful information. Accuracy, comprehensiveness, and information are always priorities.

General Content Assessment Standards

Writers can have different tastes for writing but always meet the same standard. Our editorial team works hard to enhance quality content little by little. 

We build up the quality of the content depending on three key features that can be used in medical assessment, which are:

  1. Be Readable & Comprehensive 
  2. Be Accurate
  3. Be Informative

Readable & Comprehensive Rating

When content is comprehensive, it is easy for the audience to consume and skim through. It helps answer the audience’s query and leaves them feeling well-educated on the topic. We always make sure to take a deep insight into the complexities of a topic to guarantee comprehensiveness. 

All the content is written at an appropriate reading level, using succinct sentence structures and suitable word choices. Our content is accessible and interactive.

We try to assess the quality of Readability & Comprehensiveness, based on these requirements:

  • Focus on the short and precise ideas; 
  • Should answer the target question of the topic;
  • Focus on how the article is present, avoiding a wall of text; 
  • Convey clear meaning to the audience; cover essential and useful information; showing deep research and personal perspectives of writers.

Informative Rating

Audiences can relate to the topics and trust your content. Also, give the content more personality with the writer’s knowledge and experience. 

Writers must show in-depth knowledge, as well as personal perspective on the provided topic.   

  • The content must answer the audience’s question. Usually, we always seek what the audience is wondering about, and then try to solve the problems. We go straight to the topic by giving you the short and precise answer right on the first or second paragraphs, then explain further the idea with follow-up headings.
  • Narrow the content focus – That way you can go in-depth and get useful information, and have a deep insight into various aspects of the topic.
  • Provide experts’ perspectives. This critical consideration shows that writers have a high academic level, but it automatically adds more interest and originality to the writing. 

Accurate Rating

Diligent verification is critical. We take great care to ensure that statements of fact in our content are both correct and in context, including:

  • Provide honest, true information 
  • The content will not misinform the audience 
  • The content will not affect the credibility
  • The content will not cause the audience to make wrong decisions based on the information given in the content

Editorial Evaluation Methodology Standards

As choosing the most suitable health product is essential, we decided to build an Editorial Methodology to rank product usage. We take great care to ensure that statements of fact in the rating methodology are both accurate and easy to follow. Here is how we assess a product:

  • The Evaluation Methodology is divided into two features: Health Supplement and CBD Product
  • Each category can be divided into several features to evaluate. 
  • We set the maximum overall score at 10. The score can be different among products, depending on particular evaluated features. 
  • The score is given by our team of expert health writers and is double-checked by professional medical experts. 

Health Supplement Assessment Methodology 

Ironically, most people take vitamins because they want to be healthier. The most crucial part when assessing a product is to read all ingredients on the label. Here is the summary of how we evaluate the quality of vitamins/supplements:

Ingredient Quality 

We assess the supplement if it is qualified enough to use, free of potentially harmful and unnecessary ingredients, and does not have any or only 1-2 minimal side effects. 

Here is how we classify a high-quality bottle of vitamin/supplement:

  • Score 9 – 10: 100% Safe[1]; Free of contaminants; contains all-natural ingredients and no severe side effects recorded; no controversial ingredients[2]; Constantly receive good feedback about the effectiveness;
  • Score 7 – 8: 100% Safe; 100% Free of contaminants; contain primarily natural ingredients[3] and have some minimal side effects reported. Often received good feedback about the effectiveness; only 1-2 controversial ingredients; no history of recall.
  • Score 5 – 6: 100% Safe; 75% Free of contaminants; have 1-2 side effects reported; Have some bad reviews about the effectiveness; 3-4 controversial ingredients; recall in the past but reformulated[4].
  • Score 3 – 4: Have reports[5] of products containing harmful ingredients leading to considerable side effects; much negative feedback about effectiveness; recent recall and not reformulated.
  • Score 1 – 2: False claims of ingredient content leading to serious side effects; terrible reports about side effects; many controversial ingredients; in recall status.

**Quality Criteria Notes

Safe ingredients

It may be in use in case a consumer is allergic to one of the ingredients. Read the label and do your research carefully when looking for new products. For example, a product may say it is gluten-free, but one of its ingredients may contain gluten in small amounts (less than 20 ppm). The FDA has claimed that this level will not cause an autoimmune reaction, but sensitive individuals may still react. Or, the product may be processed in a plant that handles other allergy-provoking foods allowing for cross-contamination. So just because a product is safe does not mean it is allergy-free. Allergy-provoking ingredients include soy, tree nuts, dairy products, gluten, eggs, shellfish, peanuts, and wheat. Under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, manufacturers are required to list these allergenic foods on the label

Controversial ingredients

Controversial ingredients are on the FDA’s Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) list. Still, scientific studies support the potential for or actual harm the ingredient may cause to an individual, making the public wary of the ingredient and hesitant to use it. Examples include High Fructose Corn Syrup, artificial colors, artificial flavors, maltodextrin, MSG, carrageenan, sodium benzoate, BHA, BHT, and artificial sweeteners. Note that Stevia is not considered an artificial sweetener.

Natural ingredients

include plant, animal, mineral, or microbial ingredients present in (or produced by) nature. Manufacturers may use chemical reactions or biological processes to extract natural ingredients from their source. 

Reformulated ingredients

Reformulated ingredients are when the product has been recalled for quality control problems related to one or more of its ingredients, and the ingredients need to be altered to comply with GMP.

Customer Feedback

Customer feedback is an important part of overall quality control feedback. You can learn a lot about a product’s quality from its consumers—review customer feedback for reports of adverse events.

**More Quality Criteria Notes on Interpretation of GMP

The quote “inspected by the FDA” is not a quality statement for a supplement agency. The FDA does not certify or accredit supplement laboratories. It does inspect them to see if they comply with Good Manufacturing Practices, which usually results in citations. 

Nutrients are vital to our bodies, but they can be toxic or harmful in high doses. Labels that cite ingredients over 100% of the Recommended Dietary Intakes should be viewed with caution, especially with the fat-soluble vitamins A, D, E, and K.

Support Research 

Checking the evidence behind each claim is extremely important. Clarifying the support data helps customers to guarantee the belief for the brand when using products.

The criteria below are to check medical support claims whether all ingredients have backup science research; or whether the product contains any controversial ingredients. 

  • Score 9 – 10: Strong backed-up research for every claim and ingredient. Have at least 1-2 randomized controlled trials (RCTs)[1] for human health.
  • Score 7 – 8: Backed-up research for at least 75% of claims and ingredients. Have at least one published human study[2]
  • Score 5 – 6: Minimal medical support research for claims. Weak evidence to support ingredients. 
  • Score 3 – 4: Backup by very controversial medical research/evidence; or only have animal/lab testing claims.
  • Score 1 – 2: Does not have any backup evidence.

**Support Research Criteria Notes

Randomized controlled trials (RCT)

are used to test the efficacy of medical interventions and may additionally provide information about adverse effects, such as drug reactions. A randomized controlled trial can provide compelling evidence that the study treatment causes an impact on human health. RCT may achieve sufficient control over these confounding factors to deliver a useful comparison of the treatments studied.

Published studies on humans

Although the randomized controlled trial (RCT) remains the gold standard of research, it is not the only way to get your research questions answered. There are also cohort studies, case-control studies, and qualitative studies to be considered as well.

Brand’s Transparency 

Brand transparency is another factor that clarifies the quality of the product. A transparent brand indicates that it has been tested by the independent party, is clear about agencies it is registered with, and its customer services show performance indicators as it hits the market.

Here are some of the features you can check when looking for a brand’s transparency:

  • Score 9 – 10: Follow FDA’s Good Manufacturing Program (GMP); Third-party testing[1] by the credible organization; money-back guarantee support; clear in return & shipping policy; Do not claim to treat, cure or prevent any disease; Claims and disclaimer[2] are on the label; Has a seal with one of 4 agencies listed below[3].
  • Score 7 – 8: Do not have health claims or disclaimer on the label; Have GMP approval with proven compliance; third-party testing by the credible organization; money-back guarantee support; clear in return & shipping policy; may have sealed by one of the agencies listed below; do not make claims to treat, cure or prevent any disease. 
  • Score 5 – 6: Only have GMP approval; no third-party testing by the credible organization;  makes claims to treat, cure, or prevent disease (other than structure-function claim)[4]; not registered with any agency. 
  • Score 3 – 4: Have no approval seal by the credible organization on the label; have no money-back guarantee support; no health claims or disclaimer; no third-party testing; mixed customer service reviews.
  • Score 1 – 2: Have no approval seal by credible organization in the label; Bad customer service; no update information on the website; no third-party testing.

**Brand Transparency Notes

Third-party testing

It includes an audit of the manufacturing process, an evaluation of the product’s quality, and labeling to ensure it is accurate and compliant with regulations.

Example of a Disclaimer Statement

“The statements made within this website have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. These statements and the products of this company are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.” Structure-function claims must be accompanied by the FDA disclaimer statement.

A transparent brand usually has a seal with the NSF International, US Pharmacopeia, Underwriters Laboratory, the USP Dietary Verification Program or Consumer Lab. These verify that the product actually contains the ingredients that the label says it does and that the product doesn’t have any potentially harmful ingredients.

Structure-function claims

Brands may make structure-function claims but must have a disclaimer present with the claim. No claims to treat, prevent or cure diseases are legal, according to the FDA. A structure-function claim is a physiological fact related to supplements’ effect on the body, such as “calcium builds strong bones.”

Proven Compliance

Take note of warning letters sent to supplement companies in violation of Good Manufacturing Practices. These are usually found in google searches or in customer reviews. It should be considered in a final score of brand transparency since they are an indication of compliance with the GMP. The same is true if there is evidence of lab violations of the GMP.

Value

The price may almost always be the most crucial consideration when we make a purchase. Here, we compare the cost that may be associated with the value and the quality of the supplements to see if the product is worth buying or not. 

  • Score 9 – 10: Worth it (Good price that you’re ready to buy, good to use)
  • Score 7 – 8: Possibly Worth it (high price, good to use)
  • Score 5 – 6: Maybe Worth it (high to medium price, not clear in effect)
  • Score 3 – 4: May not be worth it (high price, bad experience)
  • Score 1 – 2: Not worth it at all (too expensive)

CBD Brand Assessment Methodology 

Quality  

Detecting a qualified cannabis source is essential, as cannabis plants can absorb harmful chemicals, heavy metals, and pesticides in soil or water, resulting in a contaminated CBD extract. 

The extraction technology is also a vital criterion, which provides the customers with the cleanest, safest, and purest oil. Hence, we evaluate CBD quality by three factors: cannabis source, extraction method, and product purity.

  • Score 9 – 10: Come from good sources of hemp plants that are free of contaminants; Using modern extraction methods (CO2 extraction, or hydrodynamic, for example)[1]; oils retain 100% purity; Have safe THC level (0.3% or below) in compliance with the Farm Bill of 2018; solid evidential support for 100% claims and ingredients.
  • Score 7 – 8: Come from a good source of hemp plants that are free of contaminants; Can use other extraction methods (alcohol, hydrocarbon) but still retain purity; have evidential support for 75% of its claims and ingredients.
  • Score 5 – 6: Hemp source is from overseas and is 75% free of contaminants; Minimal medical support research for claims. Weak evidence to support ingredients; Contain additive ingredients which are reported to be harmful to your body.
  • Score 3 – 4: Hemp plants are contaminants; Does not have a product’s test results; Has no medical support research for claims; recorded some severe side effects.
  • Score 1 – 2: contain added ingredients that are harmful to your body; recorded serious side effects.

**Product Quality Criteria Notes: 

Modern Techniques

A hydrodynamic extraction technique uses ultra-sonication to break the cannabis into a nano-emulsion and releases it into an aqueous phase. It is a newer, more modern extraction technology that is right up there with CO2 extraction as far as quality. Ultrasound-assisted microwave extraction is another modern extraction method.

Brand’s Transparency 

A transparent CBD manufacturer always provides a certificate of analysis (COA) to back up claims and practices they have made and their customer support policy. We take the hemp source, the COA result, customer support, and the presence of CBD and THC levels into consideration. 

Here is how we detect a brand’s clarity:

  • Score 9 – 10: Have third-party testing results[1] by a credible organization (Have COA[2] from manufacturers); usual product variety; clear in return & shipping policy; money-back guarantee; well-known hemp source[3] (usually the USA made).
  • Score 7 – 8: Have COA Certification; well-known hemp source (usually the USA made); doesn’t have a wide product variety. 
  • Score 5 – 6: Lack COA Certification; make unallowed claims; not clear in return & shipping policy; un-checked hemp source.
  • Score 3 – 4: No money-back guarantee; make unallowed claims on the label; unknown hemp source.
  • Score 1 – 2: Make false health claims; bad customer service; no update on the website.

**Brand Transparency Criteria Notes

Third-party lab tests

Third-party test result may use methods validated by one of three national standard-setting organizations: the Association of Official Agricultural Chemists (AOAC), the American Herbal Pharmacopoeia (AHP), or the US Pharmacopeia (USP). 

A Certificate of Analysis (COA)

COA is a document provided by a third party (generally a lab) that analyzes some of the various compounds found in your cannabis. This testing can include outlining a strain’s cannabinoid and terpene profile as well as testing for other crucial factors like pesticide residues or heavy metals. Note that the safe level for various heavy metals may vary from state to state. Example: lead.

Hemp source

Hemp source is mostly from USA growth that meets the requirements of the Farm Bill Act 2018. 

Hemp plants outside of the USA could be dangerous due to a lack of regulations and varying safety standards.

Value 

To make sure you spend the right amount of money on high-quality and worthy products, we would compare the cost, the value, and the quality provided in the product. 

  • Score 9 – 10: Worth it (Good price, suitable to use, good feedback about the results)
  • Score 7 – 8: Possibly Worth it (high price, reasonable to use)
  • Score 5 – 6: Maybe Worth it (high to medium cost, not clear in effect)
  • Score 3 – 4: May not be worth it (high price, bad experience)
  • Score 1 – 2: Not worth it at all (too expensive; not worth buying)

Welcome for your Feedback

Healthcanal always welcome your precious contribution. Don’t hesitate to contact us about your concerns to improve the content quality.

Harvard Health Publishing

Database from Health Information and Medical Information

Harvard Medical School
Go to source

Trusted Source

Database From Cleveland Clinic Foundation

Go to source

Trusted Source

Database From U.S. Department of Health & Human Services

Governmental Authority
Go to source

WHO

Database from World Health Organization

Go to source

Neurology Journals

American Academy of Neurology Journals

American Academy of Neurology
Go to source

MDPI

United Nations Global Compact
Go to source

Trusted Source

Database From National Institute for Occupational Safety & Health

U.S. Department of Health & Human Services
Go to source

Trusted Source

Database from U.S. National Library of Medicine

U.S. Federal Government
Go to source

Trusted Source

Database From Department of Health and Human Services

Governmental Authority
Go to source

PubMed Central

Database From National Institute Of Health

U.S National Library of Medicine
Go to source