Skip to main content
Redwood Wellness

Editorial

Editorial Policy — Evidence Methodology

Every clinical statement on Redwood Wellness is traceable to a specific source. This page explains the evidence hierarchy we use, how we verify facility data, and why we sometimes decline to make a recommendation even when competitors do.

Evidence hierarchy we follow

When we make a clinical claim, we rely on evidence from the highest-available tier. A claim's strength is bounded by the strength of its source.

  1. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses (Cochrane, AHRQ, NIH-supported). These aggregate findings across multiple randomized trials and represent the strongest available consensus.
  2. Randomized controlled trials published in peer-reviewed journals. These establish causal relationships between interventions and outcomes.
  3. Federal clinical guidelines from SAMHSA, NIDA, CDC, and the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. These represent convened expert consensus on current best practice.
  4. Clinical practice guidelines from accredited professional bodies (ASAM, APA, AAP). These represent specialty-society positions.
  5. Observational research in peer-reviewed journals (cohort studies, case-control studies). Useful for population-level questions; weaker for individual-treatment decisions.
  6. Expert opinion and case reports. Used only for context, never as the basis for a clinical recommendation.

Citations in articles

Every article that makes specific clinical claims lists its primary sources in a "Sources" section. We cite:

  • Publication title, author(s), journal or agency, year.
  • Direct URL to the source where one exists.
  • The specific page, figure, or section supporting the claim, where relevant.

We don't cite Wikipedia, affiliate-aggregator sites, or unverified personal blogs as sources. If a claim in our article comes from a secondary summary rather than the primary study, we say so.

When evidence is insufficient to support a recommendation

Some decisions patients face are genuinely under-researched. We don't invent certainty where the literature doesn't provide it. When evidence is mixed, sparse, or actively debated, our default is to describe the state of the evidence — what studies exist, what they found, where they conflict — and let the reader draw their conclusion or raise the question with their clinician.

Examples where we decline to make strong recommendations: optimal MAT duration for individual patients; ideal length of residential treatment; whether a specific holistic modality adds clinical benefit beyond standard care. Evidence on these questions is evolving; we present what's available rather than forcing a conclusion.

Facility data: how we verify

Our directory of 21,568 treatment facilities is sourced from the federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) Behavioral Health Treatment Services Locator. This is the public federal dataset used by hospital case managers, 211 helplines, and state referral services.

  • Sync frequency: quarterly, aligned to SAMHSA's public data releases.
  • Cross-references: where a facility's listing is ambiguous or unverified, we cross-check state license databases, the Joint Commission accreditation registry, and CARF's provider directory.
  • Discrepancy handling: when a facility's own website says one thing and its SAMHSA filing says another, we use the SAMHSA data (federally accountable) and flag the discrepancy.
  • Outdated records: a facility that hasn't updated its SAMHSA filing in over 12 months is labelled "verification pending" rather than presented as current.

Insurance and policy content

Insurance explainers cite: the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA) regulations (45 CFR Part 146); the Affordable Care Act's essential-health-benefit provisions; CMS Medicaid SUD policy; each named insurer's public plan documents. We don't guarantee individual coverage — policies vary by plan year and employer — but the framework we describe is anchored to federal law.

Update cycle

  • Policy-driven content (insurance, legal, regulatory): full review every 12 months or sooner if federal rules change.
  • Clinical explainers: major review every 24 months; targeted update sooner if new systematic-review evidence or major guideline change.
  • Facility directory: quarterly SAMHSA sync.

The "Last reviewed" date at the bottom of each article reflects the most recent editorial review, not the original publication date.

Corrections

Errors are corrected at the point of occurrence and logged. Significant corrections — changes to clinical guidance, factual claims, or citations — are noted with a dated correction line. To report an error: contact the editorial team.

Independence disclosure

Redwood Wellness does not accept payment from any treatment facility in exchange for directory placement, ranking, or article content. Our listings are drawn from public federal data; our articles are produced by staff with no clinical or financial relationship to listed facilities.