This page is the public rubric for every graded article on this research wiki. We grade the published evidence, not our enthusiasm. When a finding is thin, mixed, or unblinded, the grade moves down.

Norwest Wellbeing publishes this corpus. Reviewers who also deliver clinical hypnotherapy at the clinic are named on each page, and that relationship is disclosed. Norwest is not part of AHPRA; we do not claim AHPRA registration.

How a grade is assigned

A condition or study page gets a letter only when the article type is an overview, evidence review, study explainer, or comparison. Method, history, and concept pages use M when they describe mechanisms or methods rather than treatment outcomes.

Grades are conservative. If two readings are plausible, we take the lower one. Negative and mixed results are reported on the page, not only in a footnote.

The scale we use

Grade	Meaning	Typical basis
A	Strong evidence	Multiple high-quality RCTs or meta-analyses with consistent findings
B	Moderate evidence	Some RCTs or limited meta-analyses; promising but not definitive
C	Mixed or preliminary	Early or conflicting outcome evidence; interpret with caution
D	Inconclusive	Mostly observational or too weak to support a treatment claim
M	Methods / mechanism	Describes how something works or how we work, not a treatment-outcome grade

M is not a hidden “mixed outcomes” grade. Mixed outcome evidence is C (or D if it cannot support a claim).

What we count as support

For a Grade A outcome claim we look for:

At least two independent randomised trials, or one high-quality trial replicated by a second research group
At least one systematic review or meta-analysis in the same direction
A pooled participant count that is not a handful of small clinic series
Follow-up of at least several months in at least one trial
No major contrary trial that overturns the claim

Grade B is used when the direction of effect is mostly positive but samples are small, follow-up is short, one group dominates the literature, or endpoints are unblinded.

Grade C is for pilot work, single-site series, or findings that genuinely conflict.

Grade D is for anecdote, mechanism speculation sold as proof, or marketing claims the trials do not support.

Modifiers that lower a grade

We downgrade when:

Participants or assessors cannot be blinded and the main outcome is subjective
The method’s originators are the only people reporting large effects
The only comparison is a waitlist or “no treatment”
Attrition is high and analysis ignores drop-outs
Small-study or publication-bias signals appear in a review

We treat as stronger (not an automatic upgrade) when a trial was pre-registered, independently replicated, used a physiological or blinded endpoint, or followed people for 12 months or more.

What every graded page must show

The letter and a plain-language label (not colour alone)
A one-line evidence basis
A key limitation (for hypnotherapy this is often that people cannot be blinded)
A What we don't know yet section when the evidence is not closed
A link back to this methodology page

See the IBS hub for a Grade A example: Gut-directed hypnotherapy for IBS.

Clinic pages are separate

Treatment, fees, and booking live on condition money pages such as IBS hypnotherapy. Research pages may link there once, after the evidence. They do not rewrite trial protocols to match a clinic offer.

Review cycle

Grades are reviewed when a substantial new trial or guideline appears, and at least annually for Grade A and B pages. The Last reviewed date on each article is the public record of that pass.

This page is informational. It is not personal medical advice.