The Methodology
How we
read the science.
Every verdict, every evidence tier, every Uwazia Certified badge is the output of a process. This is that process — in full, with no fine print.
This page is the citation when our judgements are challenged. If you find something we got wrong, write to us: uwaziacare@gmail.com.
Evidence tiers
Three tiers replace the “clinically proven” sticker.
Marketing flattens everything to one breathless tier. The science doesn’t. We mark every ingredient and brand with the evidence tier that best fits the current literature.
Established
Evidence is settled.
Multiple randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, or decades of dermatology-grade clinical use converge on the same conclusion. The mechanism is well-characterized, the therapeutic concentration range is known, and the safety profile is documented. Niacinamide, retinoids, ascorbic acid, salicylic acid, sunscreen filters with FDA monographs or EU CosIng approvals — all sit here.
When we recommend an established ingredient, we cite the concentration range and the expected outcome. There is no hedging.
Emerging
Evidence is promising but incomplete.
Smaller trials, in-vitro studies, or strong mechanistic data point to efficacy — but we don't yet have the long-term, large-cohort confirmation that would move it to established. Bakuchiol, peptide cocktails, plant stem-cell extracts, several growth-factor formulations sit here. Often the question isn't whether it works, but how reliably and for whom.
When we cover emerging ingredients, we say what's known, what's missing, and where the question marks are. We don't pretend the literature is finished.
Uncharted
Evidence is anecdotal or absent.
Traditional preparations, novel proprietary blends, ingredients with strong marketing claims but no peer-reviewed trials. This isn't a dismissal — many uncharted ingredients have generations of folk-medicine support and may well work. But we don't yet have the controlled data to say so with confidence.
We cover uncharted ingredients honestly. We describe the traditional use, the mechanistic hypothesis, and the gap in the formal literature. No false certainty either way.
Product verdicts
Four verdicts. No half-stars, no five-point scales.
Five-star reviews are easy to game. Half-stars are noise. We use four discrete labels and we say what each one means in plain English — the same way a knowledgeable friend would.
Hero
Editor's pick
The formulation is clean, the actives are at therapeutic concentrations, the price is reasonable for what's inside, and the brand is transparent about sourcing and INCI. These are the products we'd hand a friend.
Worth considering
Solid
The product does what it claims, generally well. It may be priced higher than it should be, or one of its supporting ingredients is filler, or the concentration of the headline active is at the lower end of effective. It's a reasonable choice — just not a standout.
Pass
We'd skip
Underdosed actives, fragrance or alcohol high in the ingredient list when the category demands a gentle formula, or claims the INCI doesn't support. We name the issue specifically — never a blanket dismissal.
Not yet covered
Unreviewed
We've added the product to the catalog for completeness, but our editors haven't formed a verdict yet. Treat this as neutral — no opinion published, not even an implicit one.
Principles
Six rules the editorial team will not break.
01
Primary literature first
We read studies, regulatory filings, and clinical trial registries before we read brand copy. When a brand makes a claim we can't substantiate from primary sources, we say so.
02
Melanin-rich phototypes are not an afterthought
Most SPF studies and pigmentation trials over-recruit Fitzpatrick I–III skin. When the science diverges for phototypes IV–VI, we say so explicitly — and we link to the studies that include darker skin specifically.
03
No sponsored copy, no affiliate links
Uwazia does not accept payment to feature a product, write a verdict, or grant certification. Brands cannot buy placement. The Ledger and verdicts are protected by editorial firewall.
04
Concentration is non-negotiable
When the headline active matters at a specific therapeutic threshold — vitamin C above 10%, retinaldehyde above 0.05%, salicylic acid above 1% leave-on — we ask for the concentration. If the brand won't disclose, the product can't earn Hero status. Full stop.
05
African and Korean innovation get equal seats
We don't treat Tanzanian, Nigerian, or South African brands as a separate, lower tier. The criteria are the same. The standard is the same. The audit is the same.
06
Verdicts change when evidence changes
If a product reformulates, if a brand discloses what it previously withheld, if new studies move the science — we update the verdict and date the revision. The Ledger publishes the why.
What we cite
Sources, in order of weight.
Not every source carries equal authority. When we cite below an item in this list, we say so. When two sources conflict, the higher-weight source wins.
- 01
Peer-reviewed journals (PubMed-indexed where possible).
- 02
Regulatory filings (FDA monographs, EU CosIng, Health Canada, Korean MFDS).
- 03
Clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov, ICTRP).
- 04
Manufacturer technical dossiers (ingredient supplier data sheets — held to lower weight than independent studies).
- 05
Dermatology textbooks and society position papers (AAD, BAD, EADV).
Editorial firewall
The verdicts are not for sale.
Uwazia may, in the future, monetize through subscriptions, brand certification fees, or data licensing. None of those revenue streams will ever buy a verdict, alter a Ledger article, or change an evidence tier. The wall is permanent. If it ever stops being permanent, we will say so on this page in full, and you will be the first to know.
The work, in long form
The Ledger is where the methodology becomes visible.
Read an investigative piece end-to-end and you’ll see the evidence chain, the citations, and how a verdict is reached. That’s the methodology in motion.