Evidence Review Policy

Synthevera Research uses transparent, Codex-led evidence synthesis. It is not a clinic, physician, regulator, university or peer-review body. Authority comes from inspectable methods, retained sources, reproducible calculations, explicit uncertainty and accountable publisher approval.

How a research question is built

Each material topic starts with a versioned scope, planned outcomes, source classes, inclusion and exclusion criteria, search strings, search dates and a screening ledger. Search-engine rank is discovery evidence only; it is never treated as proof of clinical quality or national representativeness.

How evidence is judged

Malaysian official sources and current guidance are prioritised where applicable. Clinical findings are assessed by study design, risk of bias, directness, consistency, applicability, conflicts and retraction status. Journal prestige alone does not make a claim reliable. Benefits, harms, diagnostic boundaries and uncertainty are extracted separately.

How numbers are produced

Every displayed metric must reproduce from a retained source registry, extraction ledger or immutable dataset. Malaysian advertised-price studies record the treatment basis, source, date, clinic group, branch, market, promotion and inclusion decision; non-comparable quotes are not blended.

Audit and approval

A separate adversarial pass challenges source selection, calculations, causal language, missing harms and contradictory evidence. Publisher approval is valid only when it is bound to the exact content and evidence checksums. It confirms the disclosed process, not medical advice or universal truth.

Living evidence

Published pages remain fully visible while their evidence snapshots show source and price coverage honestly. Unsupported claims are removed, narrowed or labelled as gaps. Corrections are dated and material evidence changes trigger a new synthesis and approval record.