Editorial and research standards
Sleepmaxx exists to check sleep advice against the research. These are the rules we hold ourselves to, so you can judge our work on its method.
How we rate evidence
We rate claims, not products or compounds. "Magnesium works" is too vague to be true or false; "magnesium improves self-reported sleep quality in older adults with low dietary intake" can be tested. Each article lists the claims it examined and gives each one a rating on this scale:
Consistent findings from multiple randomised controlled trials or a good-quality systematic review, in humans, on an outcome that matters for sleep rather than only a biomarker.
Several human trials, mostly pointing the same way, with real limitations such as small samples, short follow-up, narrow populations or mixed-ingredient products.
One or two small human trials, mixed results, or evidence that is mostly observational and cannot separate cause from association.
Animal, cell or mechanistic work, or uncontrolled pilot studies in humans.
No meaningful human evidence, or findings that conflict too much to call.
A few principles sit behind those definitions:
- Human evidence decides the rating. A plausible mechanism or a striking animal study can make a claim interesting, but it cannot lift it above preliminary.
- Association is not causation. Large observational studies are valuable, but on their own they cannot rate higher than limited for a causal claim.
- Outcomes matter. A change in a blood marker is not the same as better sleep. We say which outcomes were actually measured.
- Safety is separate. A claim can have strong evidence of benefit and still carry risks for some people. We describe safety separately and never fold it into the rating.
- Every rating has a written basis naming the studies behind it, so you can disagree with us on the specifics.
Which sources we use
We give most weight to systematic reviews and meta-analyses, then randomised controlled trials, then other controlled human studies, then large observational studies. Clinical guidelines from established medical bodies inform our advice on when to seek help. We link to the original paper through its DOI or PubMed record wherever one exists, rather than to news coverage.
We describe the limitations that matter: small samples, short follow-up, narrow populations (many sleep studies recruit only young men), industry funding, mixed-ingredient products and conflicting results.
How an article is made
- Brief. We define the research question, the reader it serves and the claims it will test.
- Research log. Every source is recorded with its identifier, design, sample size, population and findings before drafting begins.
- Draft. Every factual statement cites a source from the research log. Our publishing system rejects a citation that is not in the article's reference list.
- Reference check. Each DOI and PubMed ID is checked automatically against Crossref and PubMed, and titles must match, so a mistyped or invented reference fails before publication.
- Fact-check. Each cited claim is reread against its source to catch overstatement, wrong numbers, or associations written up as causes.
- Human review. A named person reads the full article and approves it. Our publishing system will not publish an article without that sign-off.
Independence
Sleepmaxx does not use affiliate links, run sponsored articles or accept payment for coverage. When we name a product, it is because it is relevant to the question, for example because it is the only product of its kind. No company sees an article before publication.
Corrections and updates
Science moves. When a new study changes a verdict, or we find an error, we update the article, change the date, and record what changed in the article history at the bottom of the page.
What we are not
Sleepmaxx is an educational publication. We don't diagnose, prescribe or give personal medical advice, and nothing here replaces a conversation with a doctor. Every article includes a short guide to when to seek professional help. See our medical disclaimer.