How we evaluate evidence

shrinkiatry covers a profession, so a lot of what we report is institutional fact: how long residency is, what a board requires, what a regulation says. For those, we go to the body that sets the rule. But we also report on research and trends, and there the discipline of weighing evidence matters.

We prefer primary and authoritative sources

For rules and structures, we cite the source of the rule, such as the ACGME, the ABPN, the DEA, or HRSA. For clinical and scientific claims, we prefer peer-reviewed research, systematic reviews, and guidelines from recognized bodies over secondary coverage.

We separate what's shown from what's claimed

A single study is not a settled fact. When we describe research, we try to convey the strength and the limits of the evidence, including how large or replicated a finding is, what population it applies to, and what it doesn't prove. Early or single-setting results are labeled as such.

We state uncertainty plainly

When evidence is mixed, thin, or evolving, we say so. That's especially true for fast-moving areas like artificial intelligence and telemedicine regulation, where today's accurate statement may need updating tomorrow.

We attribute numbers

Statistics are tied to their source and dated where it matters. If a figure is an estimate or a projection, we describe it that way rather than presenting it as a fixed count.

We update

When better evidence or newer data appears, the page changes, and significant changes are noted under our corrections policy.