How we choose and explain evidence
The goal is dependable, understandable guidance. We prioritize the evidence that answers the question, explain its limits, and separate research from personal experience.
What gets priority
- Clinical guidance and systematic reviews. We look for relevant professional guidelines and transparent evidence syntheses. Their search date, jurisdiction and outcome-specific certainty still matter.
- Primary studies for the actual claim. Randomized comparisons help assess treatments; diagnostic, natural-history and patient-experience questions may need other designs. We name the population, design and limits.
- Results that matter to people. Changes in a scan, pressure reading or lesion size are not automatically improved sight, easier reading or better quality of life. We keep these outcomes separate.
- Current sources, checked for conflicts. A respected institution can have an older page. We compare newer specialist evidence and regulatory scope rather than treating one website as infallible.
How to read the evidence summaries
Every selected study has a source link, date, design, findings and limitations. The “How to read this evidence” text is a plain-language editorial appraisal. It is not an independently conducted GRADE assessment, journal ranking or star rating.
Large sample size and a recent publication date do not remove bias. Multiple papers can report the same trial, and improvements in an uncontrolled series do not prove treatment caused them. When evidence is sparse, we say so rather than invent certainty or exclude important patient experiences.
These guides are curated educational reviews, not exhaustive systematic reviews. We do not claim that every relevant paper has been identified or that source checking constitutes clinical review.
Symptoms, simulations and diagnoses
Each simulator opens with an illustrative example and its relevant controls. Reset returns to that guide’s starting settings. Slider values are not clinical severity, calibrated visual-field loss or a prediction of progression. Animation stays paused until the visitor chooses to play it.
Some conditions cannot be responsibly represented with a generic blur, black patch or colored overlay. Cerebral visual impairment, visual neglect and suppression need different explanations. New topics may need a reference guide before a visual model.
Original VisualSim illustrations are labelled separately from published research figures. Reused figures require verified rights, visible attribution and a statement about modifications or reconstructions.
Organizations and social connections
We check organization-owned pages for the links we publish. We label charities, professional bodies, research providers, peer groups and archives separately; an organization’s existence is not proof of every claim on its website. Communities provide lived experience and connection, not controlled treatment evidence.
We do not scrape private groups, create accounts, post on your behalf or embed third-party social feeds. External services have their own access, privacy and moderation rules. Inactive services are removed from active-support recommendations or clearly marked as archives.
The directory is not exhaustive. Global member networks offer additional regional and language coverage. Availability, eligibility and professional registration should be checked with the service itself.
Review status and corrections
Research agents and project maintainers have checked sources and performed editorial cross-checks. No named clinician has yet completed an independent clinical review of the expanded guide library, and the simulations are not clinically validated diagnostic tests.
If you spot an outdated source or a broken link, use the feedback option in the main simulator and identify the page and source. Feedback is sent only after your explicit action; no patient image or simulator configuration is automatically attached.
Explore organizations and support · Browse current visual guides