Every change that alters the substance of an article gets logged here, with the date and what changed. If you think something on this site is wrong, tell me and it will end up on this page.
11 September 2026 — first full fact-check and link check
Every source link on the site was tested, and a sample of the most load-bearing statistics in each of the 50 articles (trial results, prevalence figures, dosages and regulatory statements) was re-read against the page it cites. Of roughly 150 claims checked, 145 matched their source exactly. These are the ten that were corrected, clarified or softened:
- Maskne and acne mechanica — A meta-analysis result was described as an odds ratio. It is a relative risk (1.42, 95% CI 1.31–1.54). Corrected, and the confidence interval added.
- Back acne — A 2022 laboratory study was described as testing 70 C. acnes strains. The contact-time experiments used 30 representative isolates selected from that collection. Corrected in the text and in the infographic.
- How to start adapalene — Specific figures from a 2014 Japanese trial (100 patients; 100% vs 70% still on treatment at week 4) could not be verified because the paper is paywalled. The claim is now described in general terms and flagged as unconfirmed.
- Niacinamide for acne — A split-face study was described as reducing surface oil. In that 30-person arm the difference only approached statistical significance (p=0.055) and the sebum excretion rate did not change. Reworded.
- Post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation — Attributed Fitzpatrick skin types IV to VI to StatPearls; the source says types III to VI. Corrected.
- Acne scars vs dark spots — Said StatPearls lists sunscreen first among treatments for dark marks. The source frames daily UV protection as the backdrop to a stepwise plan whose first step is calming the inflammation. Reworded.
- Makeup that won’t clog pores — Cited product-replacement intervals (6–12 months for foundation) that appear only inside a graphic on the source page, which says there are no set rules. Replaced with the open-jar symbol guidance.
- Topical clindamycin — A resistance study was described as sampling 50 patients; the 30.6% figure comes from the 36 patients whose swabs grew C. acnes. Clarified.
- Should you pop pimples? — Cited the same US scarring cohort as another article using a different patient count. Reworded to “nearly 2,000” so the two articles agree.
- Site-wide — Every source link on the site (314 unique URLs) was tested; all resolve. Source counts and a “links checked” date now appear under each article’s byline.
No claim checked was contradicted by its source, and no dosage, safety or pregnancy claim needed changing. The method behind these checks is described in the Editorial Policy.