How we decide what to trust

Evidence & sources

Not all sources answer the same question or carry the same weight. We use an evidence hierarchy and make uncertainty visible instead of flattening every study into a “good” or “bad” food rule.

Last reviewed: 17 August 2026

Diagram showing the types of evidence and guidance sources used by the site. — Evidence hierarchy used to weigh guidance, reviews, studies and practical sources.

Our evidence hierarchy

Clinical guidelines and official health guidance. Current guidance from bodies such as the NHS and the joint EASL–EASD–EASO MASLD guideline forms the foundation for disease-level recommendations.
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Useful when they synthesise an appropriate body of research and their limitations are understood.
High-quality primary studies. Randomised trials and robust cohort studies can answer narrower questions, but one study does not automatically establish a general recommendation.
UK healthy-eating guidance. The government's Eatwell Guide and NHS balanced-diet guidance help with general food-pattern context when the MASLD literature does not require a disease-specific rule.
Practical secondary sources. These may help with cooking or organisation, but they do not outrank clinical evidence for health claims.

Core sources used to set the site's health framework

NHS: NAFLD / MASLD

The NHS overview explains the condition, recognises MASLD as the newer name, and emphasises healthy lifestyle changes including a balanced diet, physical activity and weight management where appropriate.

View NHS source

EASL–EASD–EASO MASLD guideline

The 2024 joint European clinical practice guideline provides the current evidence framework for MASLD, including non-pharmacological management and dietary-pattern recommendations.

View guideline

UK Eatwell Guide

The Eatwell Guide defines UK government healthy-eating recommendations and is used for general balanced-diet context rather than as a disease-specific treatment plan.

View GOV.UK source

How we handle food-by-food questions

A food can fit into an overall healthy eating pattern without having proven liver-specific benefits. We therefore avoid turning associations into prescriptions. If research on coffee, eggs, fruit, dairy or another food is uncertain or observational, the page should say that rather than announcing the food “heals”, “cleanses” or “reverses” fatty liver.

What we reject as evidence

Anonymous social posts or testimonials as proof of treatment effect.
Supplement sales pages or affiliate copy as medical evidence.
Single mechanistic studies used to make confident human treatment claims.
AI-generated citations that cannot be verified against a real source.
Claims that rely only on another content site's unsourced summary.

Source dates and updates

We favour current guidance and check whether older evidence has been superseded. A source being old does not automatically make it wrong, but major changes in terminology, treatment or dietary guidance trigger a fresh evidence check.