Evidence-based education—not diagnosis or personalized medical care. See how evidence ratings work →
AutonoHealth
Ask Otto
Evidence Center

Confidence should come from transparency—not certainty theater.

AutonoHealth separates what is well established from what is promising, inconsistent, or unknown. Ratings summarize evidence for a specific claim and are always paired with context.

Otto presenting an evidence insight
AutonoHealth summary scale

Four levels, written for real people.

These levels are inspired by evidence-grading principles but are a plain-language editorial summary—not a replacement for a formal guideline’s own grading system.

AStrong evidence

Consistent support from high-quality research, authoritative guidelines, or well-established clinical evidence for the stated use.

BModerate evidence

Research generally supports the claim, but limitations reduce confidence in consistency, magnitude, or broad applicability.

CLimited or mixed

Findings are early, small, inconsistent, indirect, preparation-specific, or meaningfully dependent on context.

DInsufficient evidence

Reliable research is too sparse or weak to estimate benefit with useful confidence.

A rating is not permanent. It can change when better evidence, new safety information, updated guidelines, or more relevant studies become available.
What the rating considers

More than study count.

  • Study design and risk of bias
  • Consistency across studies
  • Directness to the exact population and outcome
  • Precision and sample size
  • Realistic size and importance of benefit
  • Agreement with current authoritative guidance
What stays separate

Evidence, safety, and fit are different questions.

A treatment can have strong evidence and still be inappropriate for a particular person. Another can be relatively low risk but have insufficient evidence of meaningful benefit.

EvidenceHow confident are we about the defined effect?
SafetyWhat harms, interactions, and monitoring matter?
Personal fitHow do goals, conditions, access, and preferences change the choice?
Editorial workflow

A visible path from source to page.

Each published topic should show its reviewer, dates, source notes, limitations, and revision history.

1

Frame the claim

Define the treatment, population, use, comparison, and outcome.

2

Find the best sources

Prioritize current guidelines, systematic reviews, major trials, regulators, and public-health agencies.

3

Rate and explain

Assign a level, write the rationale, separate safety, and state limitations.

4

Review and update

Qualified review, dated publication, correction pathway, and scheduled surveillance.

Source priorities

Start as close to the evidence as possible.

AutonoHealth favors authoritative and primary sources, then translates them without stripping away uncertainty.

Clinical guidance

Current, transparent guidelines from recognized professional or public-health bodies.

Evidence syntheses

High-quality systematic reviews and meta-analyses with methods and limitations visible.

Primary & regulatory sources

Major clinical trials, FDA labeling, government fact sheets, and high-quality primary research.

A helpful next step

See the scale applied—not just explained.

Browse the Treatments Library to compare the same framework across lifestyle approaches, medicines, and natural products.

View treatment ratings Ask Otto
Otto offering encouragement