Review basis

What our product reviews are based on.

This page explains how MonthlyCup review content should be written: from documented specifications, stated instructions and live product pages — not from invented testing, anonymous quotes or unsupported claims.

Publisher: MonthlyCup. Source summaries were retrieved for this guide on 2026-09-07.

Layered source cards for menstrual cup review documentation
Review promise

We identify the sender, name the source type and mark the limits of what the source can support.

Source map

The review starts with a small, named source set.

The supplied material for this guide contains MonthlyCup manufacturer pages: a model comparison and usage guide, a MonthlyCup Normal Pink product page and a customer support page. Those sources are product documentation, not independent clinical evidence.

MonthlyCup model comparison and usage guide

Supports listed model dimensions and capacities, guidance to compare measurements with flow and preferences, selected emptying and removal instructions, and cleaning/storage notes such as boiling before first use and between periods as instructed.

MonthlyCup Normal Pink product information

Supports the Normal model dimensions, 22 ml capacity to the holes, medical-grade silicone statement, manufacture in Sweden and that the product is supplied with a fabric storage pouch and instruction manual.

MonthlyCup customer support page

Supports that product and shopping assistance is available via the live support page, with the displayed customer-service email shop@mosweden.com. It should not be presented as medical care.

Claims must be traceable

If a review says a cup has a 43 mm diameter, that number must appear in the approved source material. If a claim is not documented, it should be removed or written as uncertainty.

Sender identity stays visible

This domain should not create a fictional independent editorial team. MonthlyCup is the sender, and that context matters for readers evaluating the information.

Instructions are not expanded

Usage wording should stay within the supplied source summary: wash hands, empty according to flow and no later than 12 hours, release the seal before removal and follow the supplied instructions.

Dynamic information stays live

Prices, offers and stock should be checked on the current shop. A static review page should not promise savings or availability unless verified for a dated example.

Claim boundaries

What should not appear in a careful review.

The absence of supplied evidence is not a gap to fill creatively. It is a signal to write more carefully.

No invented tests

We do not claim in-house trials, laboratory comparisons, absorbency experiments or ranking tables when no original dataset is supplied.

No fake social proof

We do not create customer quotes, star ratings, author experiences or testimonials that were not provided as verifiable source material.

No medical promises

We do not present product support as medical care or turn product specifications into health advice. Product-specific questions should go to current support; medical concerns require an appropriate healthcare professional.