Trustworthy health information starts with knowing who's behind it. Here's our team, our review process, and our commitment to evidence-based accuracy.
Trustworthy health information depends on transparency — about who produces it, what sources it rests on, and how it is checked. This page explains exactly that. Regenerative Treatment Guide publishes patient education about stem cell and regenerative medicine for people exploring non-surgical options for knee, back, shoulder, hip, and joint pain. Below is who writes and reviews that content, the standards we hold it to, and how we handle the very real uncertainty in this field.
Our editorial team researches and writes plain-English explanations of regenerative medicine, drawing on peer-reviewed literature, clinical-trial registries, and regulatory guidance. We focus on helping patients understand non-surgical options — and on clearly separating established science from areas that are still investigational. We do not provide medical care, and nothing we publish is a substitute for a consultation with a licensed physician.
We are building a medical advisory board of board-certified physicians to review our research and patient-education content for clinical accuracy. We have chosen not to publish a reviewer's name until a qualified clinician has genuinely reviewed the work — we will never attach a physician's name or credentials to content they did not actually review. Once a reviewer is in place, articles they review will display a clear "Medically reviewed by [Name, Credentials] on [date]" signal, and the reviewer's profile (name, credentials, photo, and bio) will appear below.
A medical reviewer's job is not to rubber-stamp content. Before an article carries a "medically reviewed" label, the reviewer is asked to confirm that:
Not all sources are equal. When we research a topic, we prioritize evidence in roughly this order:
We do not treat clinic marketing material, testimonials, or anecdotal claims as evidence. When a topic is genuinely uncertain, we say so rather than overstating it.
Regenerative medicine is an area where marketing often runs ahead of the science, so we are deliberate about uncertainty. For example, the FDA states that the only stem cell products approved in the United States are blood-forming stem cells derived from umbilical cord blood — approved for blood-production disorders, not orthopedic uses — and that there are currently no approved exosome products. Regenerative products such as stem cells, exosomes, adipose-derived products, Wharton's jelly, cord blood, and amniotic fluid have not been approved to treat orthopedic conditions like osteoarthritis, tendonitis, disc disease, or back, hip, knee, neck, and shoulder pain. Where the research is promising but not conclusive — as with mesenchymal stem cells for knee osteoarthritis — we describe it as promising and investigational, not proven.
Medicine evolves, and so should our content. We review key articles periodically and update them when guidance, evidence, or regulatory status changes — noting the "last updated" date when we do. If you spot something you believe is inaccurate or out of date, we want to know. We investigate every good-faith report and correct confirmed errors promptly.
Questions, corrections, or concerns about anything we publish can be sent to info@regenerativetreatmentguide.com. Learn more about our methodology on the Our Approach to Research & Patient Guidance page.