Research methodology
How rePretty reviews and publishes evidence.
Research records are designed for traceability, not decoration. Each public record links to the original source, identifies the study type and population, summarizes only selected outcomes, lists limitations, grades certainty conservatively, and states whether the evidence is category-level or product-specific.
01
Source admission
Primary journal pages, PubMed, PubMed Central, systematic reviews, and formal consensus publications can enter the reviewed library. Search results are leads until the source page is identified. Records without a stable original source stay private.
02
Evidence level
Evidence level reflects study design, certainty statements, sample size, heterogeneity, risk of bias, and transfer distance. A meta-analysis is not automatically high certainty, and a mechanistic review is marked not graded rather than promoted above clinical evidence.
03
A wavelength match is not product-specific proof
Matching 660 nm or 850 nm is insufficient. Irradiance, dose, distance or contact, pulse pattern, treatment area, schedule, population, and outcome also need to match. No current public record is a clinical study of the rePretty Mat.
04
Publication gate
Unreviewed records are not public. An approved data record may appear in the isolated V4 preview, but production still requires the brand owner and release gate. Corrections update the record, related articles, and visible review date together.