Acne advice affects your skin, your wallet and your confidence. I’m not a doctor, so the only thing that makes this site worth reading is how carefully I handle the evidence. These are the rules I write to.
1. Every clinical claim is sourced, and the source is linked
If I tell you something about your skin, you can click through and check it. In rough order of preference, I cite:
- Clinical practice guidelines from specialty bodies: the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD), the British Association of Dermatologists, and the UK’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE).
- Systematic reviews and meta-analyses, particularly Cochrane reviews.
- Large randomized controlled trials.
- Government health agencies: FDA drug labeling and OTC monographs, the NIH (including NIAMS and MedlinePlus).
- Individual peer-reviewed studies, clearly identified as such.
I don’t cite other content sites as evidence for medical claims, and I never cite a manufacturer’s own marketing as evidence that its product works.
2. I say when the evidence is weak
A lot of skincare research is small, short, uncontrolled, or funded by the company selling the product. When that’s the case I say so, and I say why. “The evidence is low certainty” is a real finding, and reporting it honestly is more useful than manufacturing confidence.
3. I report findings that are inconvenient for advertisers
Some of the best-supported answers are bad news for people selling things, including products I could earn a commission on. I publish them anyway. A site that only reports findings that suit its revenue is worth nothing to you.
4. I never fabricate medical review or credentials
If an article has been reviewed by a clinician, I name them, list their credentials, and say what they reviewed. If it hasn’t, there is no reviewer byline. There will never be a vague “medically reviewed by our experts” line standing in for review that didn’t happen. Currently, no article on this site has been clinically reviewed.
5. I untangle things that are commonly confused
Fungal “acne” (Malassezia folliculitis) isn’t acne. Rosacea isn’t acne. Sebaceous filaments aren’t blackheads. Retinoid “purging” isn’t the same as a reaction. A lot of confusion in skincare is profitable to somebody, and clearing it up is much of what a site like this is for.
6. I date everything
Every article shows when it was published and when it was last reviewed against the evidence. Guidance changes; an undated health article is one you have no way to evaluate.
7. Written for a US audience, cited internationally
Most of the guidance here reflects US drug labeling, FDA regulatory status and the American Academy of Dermatology’s guidelines, since that’s what I can verify most rigorously. Where a cited guideline comes from elsewhere, such as the UK’s NICE, I say so and note where the recommendations differ. If you’re reading from outside the US, drug availability, OTC status and prescribing rules can differ from what’s described here, so check local guidance too.
How an article is built
- The Quick Summary: a direct 30–50 word answer at the top.
- Key Takeaways: the handful of points that matter most.
- The detail: mechanism, how to use it, side effects and who should avoid it, with data tables that name their source.
- Sources: a full, linked reference list at the end.
- Last reviewed date: updated whenever I re-check the article against current evidence.
What I don’t do
- I don’t diagnose. Nothing here is medical advice or can account for your individual circumstances.
- I don’t sell a product. There is no house-brand serum.
- I don’t use scare tactics or shame.
- I don’t publish before-and-after photos or testimonials. They can’t be verified and are easily faked.
- I don’t recommend prescription medication. I explain what the evidence says; what you use is between you and a clinician.
Corrections
If something here is wrong, I want to know. Corrections are made to the article and the review date is updated; where a correction changes the substance of what I said, I note what changed. Send me the article and the source. Substantive corrections are logged, with dates, on the Corrections & Updates page.
Fact-checking and link checks
Last full check: 11 September 2026. On that date every source link on the site was tested to confirm it still resolves, and a sample of the most load-bearing statistics in each article (trial results, prevalence figures, dosages, regulatory statements) was re-read against the page it cites. Ten claims across the site were corrected, clarified or softened as a result, among them a relative risk that had been labelled an odds ratio, a lab study described with the wrong sample size, and a figure from a paywalled paper I could no longer verify, which is now flagged as unconfirmed rather than stated as fact.
Use of AI tools
Research and drafting on this site are AI-assisted, and I think you should know that. I use AI tools to search the literature, pull the relevant passages out of guidelines, reviews and trials, and draft an article before it is edited and published. What AI is never allowed to do is be the source: every clinical claim has to point at a named guideline, systematic review, trial, drug label or regulator, and the link has to go to the page that actually contains the claim. Anything that can’t be traced back to a real, checkable source gets cut rather than published.
Affiliate and advertising disclosure
TipsForAcne.com may earn a commission when you buy through some links, at no extra cost to you, and may display advertising. These relationships never determine what I conclude or which products I mention. Sponsored content, if I ever publish it, will be clearly labeled.
Medical disclaimer: Content on TipsForAcne.com is for informational purposes only and is not a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always seek the advice of a board-certified dermatologist or other qualified health provider with any questions about a medical condition.
When a claim doesn’t match its source
If a widely repeated claim does not match the source it cites, we say so on the page, set it next to what the source actually says, and link that source so you can check it yourself. We do not write to publishers, name the sites carrying the claim, or present ourselves as a fact-checking operation. We point at the primary source and let it speak. Our own errors are a separate matter, and those we log publicly with dates on corrections and updates.