Evidence methodology

Last updated: May 2026.

How content is developed

When I say "the evidence supports X," I mean something specific, and the rest of this page tells you what. I write shrinQ content to translate established psychological and psychiatric principles into a structured, self-guided educational program. It draws on my clinical background as a board-certified psychiatrist and on widely used, evidence-based frameworks for understanding overthinking, anxiety, and related patterns.

What I draw on

• Peer-reviewed psychological and psychiatric literature.
• Established clinical frameworks, such as cognitive and behavioral approaches.
• Professional guidelines and widely accepted clinical practice.
• My training and experience as a board-certified psychiatrist.

Source types I prioritize

Not every source carries the same weight. When I describe how the mind works or what an approach can do, I lean first on the sources that are most rigorous and most widely relied on in the field. In rough order of priority, those are:

• Diagnostic standards. The DSM-5-TR for how conditions are defined and described.
• National research and health bodies. Sources such as the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) for population-level findings and consensus summaries.
• Clinical practice guidelines. Guidance from bodies such as the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and comparable professional organizations.
• Peer-reviewed systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Syntheses that pool many studies, which carry more weight than any single trial.
• Individual peer-reviewed studies. Used for context and detail, and read in proportion to their size and quality.

How I grade claims: my evidence tiers

To keep my language honest, I think about each educational claim in terms of how well it's supported. I use four tiers, and I try to match the strength of my wording to the strength of the evidence behind it.

• Strong. Strong evidence on shrinQ usually means a Cochrane review, a major clinical practice guideline (APA, NICE, AASM), or a meta-analysis of randomized trials. For example, that cognitive and behavioral approaches are well established for anxiety. Here I can state things plainly.
• Moderate. Supported by a solid body of research that's broadly consistent but still developing. For example, how rumination tends to maintain low mood. Here I use measured language like "research suggests" or "tends to."
• Limited. Supported by smaller studies, indirect evidence, or clinical experience more than large trials. For example, the specific timing of a self-guided exercise. Here I say so, and I frame the idea as one option rather than a settled fact.
• Emerging. Emerging evidence means I'm flagging something interesting where the data isn't settled yet, and I tell you that's where it is. It's drawn from early research or theory that's promising but not yet well tested, so I flag the uncertainty directly and avoid implying more than the evidence can carry.

What evidence-informed means here

Evidence-informed means the educational ideas are grounded in research and established practice. It does not mean that shrinQ is a clinical trial, a systematic review, or a treatment proven for any individual. The content is general education. It is not tailored to your history or circumstances, and it is not a substitute for an evaluation by a licensed professional.

Limits of the evidence

Research in mental health continues to evolve, findings can be mixed, and what helps one person may not help another. I try to describe ideas in proportion to how well they are supported, and to avoid overstating what any approach can do. shrinQ is education, not therapy, diagnosis, treatment, crisis care, or medical advice.

Review and updates

Content is reviewed before publication under the oversight described in my medical review board. I revisit material periodically and when relevant new information emerges. Changes are handled through my corrections policy.

Date-of-last-review process

Every policy page on shrinQ carries a "last updated" date, like the one at the top of this page. That date reflects the most recent meaningful review of the content, not just a cosmetic edit. When a page goes through scheduled review, when guidance or diagnostic standards change, or when a reader flags a possible error, the content is re-read, corrected if needed, and the date is refreshed. Where a substantive medical claim is revised, that change runs back through review before it's published, and I note it through my corrections policy. The date is there so you can see at a glance how current the material is.

Questions about a specific claim

If you would like to understand the basis for a particular statement, or you think a claim should be revised, please see my corrections policy for how to reach me.

See also: Medical review board, AI use policy, Medical disclaimer.