Accuracy: I am sure you have had teachers who taught you false or inaccurate information. It is horrible to find out you have worked for weeks or months to memorize, understand, and apply false information, only to have that "sinking feeling" that you will have to do it all again, to learn the "right way". We want to ensure that does not happen to you. Research reviews are incredibly labor-intensive, but they also result in the highest likelihood of accuracy and lowest likelihood of bias. We have dedicated ourselves to achieving levels of unmatched academic rigor, on par with the most well-respected scientific journals. We have continued to refine our processes to produce systematic narrative reviews, built from comprehensive searches of peer-reviewed, published, original experimental and observational studies. Further, we attempt to write every review with unparallel transparency, and clear descriptions of the evidence and logic that resulted in supportable conservative conclusions ("conservative" in the scientific sense, not the political sense).

The Problems with Evidence-based Practice: Evidence-based practice has promoted improvements based on outcomes from objective measures (not based on feeling), and refinement based on results from 3rd party, objective data (research over anecdotal evidence). These are wonderful things; however, this movement has some big problems. First, although everyone can read research, not everyone has access to research. Second, most working professionals do not have enough time to read the volume of studies required to gain perspective on the trends implied by the body of research for a particular issue (anything less than "comprehensive review" is cherry-picking). Last, and we make this point with empathy and not critique, most professionals do not have the necessary skills and knowledge (statistics) to accurately review and interpret research findings. This last point is a failure of education programs and scientific journals who need to find ways to educate and communicate with professionals who want to be practitioners; not expert researchers, statisticians, or academics. In short, research is written for researchers, and that's a problem. We want to help address these issues. We want to be a service you can rely on for accurate reviews, that translate the research verbiage, with clear delivery, digestible summaries, and a focus on how this information applies to your day-to-day job.

The Alternative to Comprehensive Reviews is Scary: There are many other companies that claim to be "evidence-based", but do not base their content on comprehensive reviews of original research. These companies are either relying on the opinions of gurus, cherry-picking studies that support their views, or they are cherry-picking systematic reviews from other authors (secondary sources) and implying that a failure to refute the null hypothesis is proof of their opposing position. These are horrible practices that range from "highly vulnerable to bias and error", to academic dishonesty, to some cases of "bold face lies for profit". This has to change, we are intent on making the change, and we understand that both the accuracy of information, and the clear and transparent delivery of that information, are essential.

Development of nuanced conclusions based on comprehensive reviews of all available research.

Conclusions are condensed into research summaries.

Research summaries are condensed into position stands and practical applications (1-pager).

All exams can be passed from information in the research summaries and practical applications alone.