Standards & Transparency
How we research, write, and review every piece of health content on CinnamonHealth — including our evidence standards, independence principles, and update process.
CinnamonHealth exists to translate complex clinical research on cinnamon into clear, accurate, and useful health information for the general public. We are committed to being the most rigorously evidence-based source of cinnamon health information in Australia — not the most optimistic, and not the most commercially convenient.
Every health claim on CinnamonHealth must be supported by at least one peer-reviewed study published in a recognised scientific journal. We prioritise systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and randomised controlled trials (RCTs) over observational data or animal studies, and we clearly label the evidence quality.
CinnamonHealth does not accept sponsored articles, paid-for product placements, or affiliate commissions. Our supplement reviews (such as the Australia Buying Guide) are based solely on publicly available information and declared independently. If this changes, it will be disclosed prominently at the top of the relevant page.
All content is written and reviewed by our in-house editorial team. No commercial partner, sponsor, or advertiser can influence article conclusions or editorial decisions. We have full editorial control over all content.
All health articles include a prominent medical disclaimer. CinnamonHealth content is strictly educational and does not constitute medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. We encourage readers to consult a qualified healthcare professional before changing any supplement or medication regimen.
The health research landscape evolves. We review and update our articles when significant new evidence is published. Each article displays a 'last updated' date. If an article has not been reviewed in over 12 months in a fast-moving research area, we add a notice encouraging readers to seek the most current guidance.
We use a modified version of the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (CEBM) hierarchy to evaluate and label research quality in our articles. Higher-level evidence is given greater weight in our conclusions.
| Evidence Level | Study Type | Example |
|---|---|---|
| 1 — Highest | Systematic reviews & meta-analyses of RCTs | Deyno et al. (2019) — Phytomedicine |
| 2 — High | Individual randomised controlled trials (RCTs) | Khan et al. (2003) — Diabetes Care |
| 3 — Moderate | Controlled clinical studies (non-randomised) | Crawford 2009 — J. Am. Board Fam. Med. |
| 4 — Limited | Observational studies, cohort or case-control | Large population dietary studies |
| 5 — Preliminary | Animal and in vitro (cell/lab) studies | Hong et al. (2012) — Biochemical Pharmacology |
Topic selection
Topics are chosen based on reader questions, search demand, and clinical relevance — not commercial interest.
Literature search
We search PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar for peer-reviewed studies published within the last 15 years, prioritising RCTs and meta-analyses.
Evidence quality assessment
Each cited study is evaluated for sample size, study design, bias risk, and statistical significance before being included.
Drafting with caveats
Articles are drafted to reflect both supporting evidence and limitations. We specifically avoid overclaiming benefits or using language not supported by the research.
Internal review
Every article is reviewed by a second editorial team member against the cited sources before publication.
Ongoing updates
Articles are reviewed when significant new evidence is published, with the 'last updated' date revised accordingly.
If you identify a factual error in any of our articles, we want to know. Please use our contact form with a link to the article and the specific correction. We will review the claim against the primary source and update the article within 5 business days if warranted, noting the correction at the bottom of the article.