Home/Editorial method & corrections

How we work

How we source, write, and check our content.

Our canine cancer guides make claims about a frightening subject, so we hold them to a clear standard. This page explains where our numbers come from, how we handle disagreement in the evidence, who writes and reviews the content, what our stake in the field is, and how to tell us we got something wrong.

How we choose sources

Every survival or response number we publish is traced to its primary source: the peer-reviewed study that first reported it, cited by PubMed ID and DOI. We prefer primary literature over summaries. We do not take a statistic from an advocacy site and repeat it; if an organization quotes a number, we go to the study it is quoting and cite that. Where a claim has no primary source we can stand behind, we do not publish it as a fact.

How we handle conflicting evidence

Studies often disagree, usually because they enrolled different animals. When they do, we do not pick the most flattering number. We present a range, lead with the larger or more recent cohort, and carry each figure's cohort size and study design in the wording, because a median from a small retrospective review is not the same object as one from a randomised trial. We also explain, in plain language, why a median is a midpoint and not a prediction for any individual dog.

Who writes and reviews the content

Our content is written by the RosieVaccine team. We are candid about one gap: we do not yet have a board-certified veterinary oncologist reviewing these pages. Until we do, we do not claim veterinary review, and we do not attach a reviewer's name to anything they did not review. When a named veterinary oncologist reviews a page, we will say so, with their name and the date. Nothing here is a substitute for your own veterinarian.

What this content is, and is not

How to request a correction

If you believe something we published is wrong, tell us and we will look into it. Email privacy@rosievaccine.com with the page and the specific claim. When we correct a material error, we fix the page and update its "last modified" date. Getting the facts right matters more to us than being right the first time.

Our interest, disclosed

RosieVaccine is a company developing personalized mRNA cancer vaccines for dogs. We therefore have both a research interest and a financial interest in this field. We write about competing and standard treatments anyway, and we try to describe them fairly, but you should read anything we say about vaccines and immunotherapy with that stake in mind. Where we cite human or canine vaccine data, we state plainly whether it is human data, whether it is early-stage, and that no personalized cancer vaccine, including ours, has published canine efficacy data.

← Back to the canine cancer guide