Editorial standards

This site has no medical reviewer. That is a real gap, and it is stated on every page rather than papered over. What follows is what the site does instead, written down so it can be held to it.

Every clinical number is traced to a paper you can open

Not "studies show". Not "research suggests". A named trial, its authors, journal, year and page numbers, with a link — usually a DOI, sometimes a PubMed record. If a claim cannot be tied to a specific paper, it is either labelled as clinical consensus or it is not made.

The figures that carry the most weight on this site — 40% regaining normal erectile function at six months, 35.5% improving, 24.5% not; 31.7 seconds to 146.2 in the premature ejaculation study; formal training no better than standard care after prostate surgery — each sit next to the paper they came from, and the paper's own limitations are stated in the same section. The 24.5% who did not improve is on the page next to the 40% who did.

Citations are verified, not remembered

Before a citation goes live, the author list, journal, year, volume and pages are checked against Crossref or PubMed. This sounds obvious. It is not standard practice, and the reason it is written here is that during the first build of this site a review's author list was drafted from memory, turned out to be wrong, and was caught by exactly this check. The rule exists because it was needed.

The evidence's weakness is part of the claim

A single trial of 55 men is described as a single trial of 55 men. An uncontrolled study is called uncontrolled, with an explanation of why that matters. Where the evidence is contested — pornography and erectile function is the clearest case — the page says what is established, what is plausible, and what is advocacy, and links neither advocacy camp.

Commercial conflicts are disclosed on the page, not in a footer

We make one of the apps in this category. The comparison page says so above the table, lists our weaknesses in the same columns as everyone else's, takes no affiliate commission, and reads every competitor's price from that vendor's own App Store listing on a stated date. The prostate surgery page says the app is the wrong tool for that population, because the evidence says so.

Structured data describes what is true

No aggregateRating until the app has enough real ratings to report one. No reviewer in the schema when there is no reviewer. No MedicalScholarlyArticle markup on pages that are not scholarly articles. Search engines are told exactly what a reader is told.

Corrections change the date

Every article carries a published date and an updated date. A correction updates the second one. If a correction changes a conclusion rather than a detail, the text says what changed. Send corrections to support@vitalityrize.me; the clinical pages are where they are most welcome.

What the site will not do

• Claim to treat, cure or diagnose anything, in any language.
• Present a projection as a measurement, or an internal score as a clinical scale.
• Recommend supplements or testosterone products.
• Put a "medically reviewed" line on a page nobody medically reviewed.
• Use before-and-after imagery, photographs of bodies, or implied physical outcomes.
• Quote a recovery timeline that comes from a forum rather than a trial.

Who writes it

Kyrylo Lozovyi, who also builds the app. One person, no editorial team, and no pretence of one. The methodology page lists every source the programme was built from and the parts of the app we would cut first if forced to justify each screen.