Primary Sources • Product Specifications • Health Claims • Calculations
This Fact-Checking Policy explains how we verify condom sizes, nominal widths, manufacturer specifications, country-specific product information, measurement guidance, health and safety statements, calculations and conversions. Our goal is to distinguish sourced fact from editorial explanation, avoid invented precision, and correct material errors when reliable evidence changes.
Condom-size content can look deceptively simple. A page may contain only a few numbers—52 mm, 56 mm, 60 mm—but each number can mean something different: nominal width, base width, mid-body width, product length, body circumference, a manufacturer recommendation or an editorial comparison range. Mixing those meanings can produce a page that looks precise while actually being misleading.
Our fact-checking process is designed to prevent that problem. We verify technical claims at the level at which they are presented. If a page says a product has a 56 mm nominal width, we look for a source that actually supports 56 mm for that product. If a page says a public-health body recommends a particular condom-use practice, we look for the original public-health guidance.
We also distinguish facts from site-level guidance. For example, a manufacturer-published nominal width is a factual product specification. A broad girth-to-width band created to help readers compare nearby widths is editorial guidance and should be labelled as such.
Our verification process covers the parts of a page that can materially affect a reader's understanding or choice.
Not every source has equal authority for every claim. We choose the source type that is closest to the fact being checked. A manufacturer is usually the best source for its own current product dimensions. A regulator is a stronger source for a legal registration requirement. A public-health authority is a stronger source for correct-use or risk-reduction guidance.
| Priority | Source Type | Best Used For |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Government regulator / public-health authority | Medical-device rules, public-health guidance, registration, safety requirements |
| 1 | Official manufacturer page or official fit tool | Current product width, length, material, shape, fit label and instructions |
| 2 | Official national pharmacy / major authorised retailer | Local availability, locally marketed size, pack details when manufacturer page is absent |
| 2 | Peer-reviewed or institutional research | Scientific background and claims not specific to one current retail product |
| 3 | High-quality secondary reference | Supporting context that is cross-checked against stronger sources |
| Not sufficient alone | Forum post, social-media post, anonymous marketplace listing | May identify a question to investigate, but not enough to establish a technical fact |
When a primary source is reasonably available, we prefer it. That means an official Durex product page should normally outrank a reseller page for Durex nominal width, and a government medical-device regulator should outrank a commercial article for registration or conformity requirements.
Secondary sources can still be valuable. Country-specific pharmacy sites can show what is actually listed in a local market, especially when a global manufacturer site does not expose every regional product. In that situation, the article should make the role of the source clear: for example, “current Serbian pharmacy listing” rather than implying the number is a global manufacturer standard.
Nominal width is one of the most important facts on this site, so we do not treat it casually. We first confirm what the number refers to. A width measured flat at the base is not automatically the same as a mid-body width on a bulbous or flared condom.
When a manufacturer publishes multiple width measurements, we preserve the distinction. If a product is 53 mm at the base and 62 mm at the mid-body, the page should not reduce that to “62 mm condom” without explaining the geometry.
If a manufacturer uses a fit label such as Regular, Wide, XL or XXL without publishing a millimetre width, we do not assign an invented number merely to complete a chart.
A missing number is not permission to guess. This rule is particularly important for brand-size comparisons and country pages. If an official page says a condom is “wider than regular” but does not publish the exact width, the correct editorial treatment is: exact nominal width not stated on the current source.
We may explain what nearby widths are common in the market, but those comparison values must not be presented as that product's official specification. This protects readers from false precision and prevents one speculative number from being copied into future pages as though it were established fact.
Brand comparisons are checked by technical dimension, not marketing language. “Regular”, “large” and “XL” can mean different widths between brands. A fair comparison therefore asks: what is the base width, what is the body width, what is the product length, what shape is used, and what material is used?
When two brands publish data in different formats, we do not pretend the formats are equivalent. A brand that publishes only nominal width cannot always be directly compared with a brand that publishes separate base and mid-body measurements. The article should explain the mismatch rather than collapse it.
Country pages can change quickly because retailers update product ranges, brands introduce regional variants, and local regulatory language can differ. For a country-specific size chart, we look for sources that actually relate to that market.
A Thailand page should not simply copy a UK Durex chart and call it Thai. A Brazil page should distinguish Brazilian Anvisa/Inmetro context from European CE-marking context. A Serbia page should use Serbian-market availability and Serbian medical-device information where relevant.
When a local pharmacy or retailer is used to support a product size, we describe it as a current local-market listing rather than as a universal specification for every region.
Health and safety statements are checked against authoritative sources such as national public-health agencies, medical-device regulators or recognised health systems. We avoid using product marketing as the primary evidence for broad claims about STI prevention, pregnancy risk or correct condom use.
Useful examples of source types include the CDC condom-use resources, NHS condom guidance and relevant national regulators for country-specific medical-device requirements.
If evidence is nuanced, the wording should remain nuanced. A condom can reduce risk without eliminating every risk. We do not turn qualified health guidance into an absolute guarantee.
Material compatibility matters. Latex, polyurethane, polyisoprene and nitrile products can have different instructions. A lubricant statement should therefore be tied to the material and product guidance rather than copied from one condom type to another.
When we state that oil-based lubricants should be avoided with natural-rubber latex, we base that on public-health or manufacturer instructions. When a synthetic condom has different compatibility guidance, we defer to the current manufacturer instructions for that material.
Calculators can produce a large number of outputs from a small amount of code, so code review matters as much as prose review. We check the formula, unit conversion, threshold logic, rounding and result labels.
Exact conversions should remain exact before display rounding. For example, one inch equals 25.4 millimetres exactly. Displaying 5 inches as 127 mm is therefore a direct conversion, while placing 127 mm inside a broad sizing band is an editorial sizing rule. Those two steps should not be confused.
When a calculator generates a downloadable PDF, the PDF text should match the visible result and carry the same qualifications.
Girth-to-width guidance is especially sensitive because different sites and manufacturers use different fit models. If a formula comes from a regulator or manufacturer, the article identifies that source. If a range is our own broad comparison framework, the article labels it as site-level guidance.
We do not present one universal formula as a medical law. Condoms stretch, product shapes differ, and nearby nominal widths may both be plausible for the same circumference. Real-world security and comfort remain part of fit evaluation.
Conflicts happen. A retailer may list 54 mm while an older brand article says 52 mm. Two regional manufacturer pages may sell different versions under similar names. When sources conflict, we first check whether they describe the same product, country, pack generation and measurement type.
If a current product page clearly supersedes an older general article, we normally prioritise the current product page and may note the discrepancy. If the conflict cannot be resolved, we do not silently choose the more convenient number. The article should state that current sources differ.
| Type | Example | How It Should Be Written |
|---|---|---|
| Verified fact | Manufacturer lists product at 56 mm | “The current product page lists 56 mm nominal width.” |
| Calculation | 5 in × 25.4 = 127 mm | Present as a mathematical conversion. |
| Inference | A 56 mm product is roomier than 52.5 mm | Make clear it is a dimensional inference. |
| Editorial guidance | Broad 52–56 mm comparison band | Label as site-level starting guidance. |
| Unknown | XL page says “wider” but gives no mm | Say exact width is not stated; do not guess. |
Our preferred workflow checks the claim, its source quality, its scope, its recency and whether the published wording matches what the evidence actually supports.
Product specifications, availability and regulations can change. A width published several years ago may describe an older pack generation or a product sold in another market. For current-product pages and country guides, recency is part of fact-checking.
We prefer a current regional product page over an undated third-party chart when both address the same technical question. Where important, the article may state that a specification was verified from a current page or that a previous/older source reported something different.
Sometimes an official page disappears, a manufacturer blocks archived access, or a regional page lists a product without technical dimensions. In that situation, we may use a credible retailer, pharmacy, regulatory record or another official regional source.
The replacement source should be described accurately. We do not silently upgrade a retailer listing into “manufacturer data”. If no reliable source supports a material claim, the claim should be removed, softened or marked as unverified.
Major pharmacy and retail sites can be valuable on country pages because they show products being marketed locally. They can also reveal nominal width, pack size, material and registration numbers that may not appear on a global brand site.
But retailer data has limits. Listings can be stale, incorrectly copied or attached to an old pack image. For that reason, retailer claims are cross-checked when possible, and the wording should identify them as current retail listings rather than universal manufacturer specifications.
Search snippets can help locate a source, but they are not ideal final evidence because snippets can truncate context, display stale cached text or combine page elements. Whenever possible, we open and review the underlying source before relying on a claim.
Aggregated shopping or comparison results are similarly treated as discovery tools, not as the highest-quality evidence for health, regulation or technical specifications.
Automated tools, including AI-assisted research or drafting, may help organise information, compare sources, create first drafts, identify missing checks or generate code. They do not change the evidence standard.
An AI-generated number is not a source. A generated summary must still be traceable to the underlying evidence. If an automated system fills a missing field with a plausible value, that value should be rejected unless a reliable source supports it.
For technical pages, automated code should also be tested. JavaScript syntax, formula logic and result text should be checked before the page is treated as complete.
Our interactive tools separate input validation from interpretation. A calculator should reject impossible or missing values, convert units correctly and explain what the result means.
When a formula is a site-level model rather than a medical or manufacturer standard, the result panel should say so. Downloaded PDFs should preserve the same caveats rather than making the result appear more authoritative merely because it is formatted as a document.
A page can be factually wrong even when each section sounds reasonable if numbers contradict one another. We check hero examples, tables, body copy, calculators, figures and FAQs for consistency.
If the article says 52.5 mm in the main table but 52 mm in the FAQ for the same product, that inconsistency should be resolved before publication. The same applies to unit conversions and threshold boundaries.
| Claim | Why It Is Sensitive | Required Check |
|---|---|---|
| “This is the thinnest condom.” | Superlative may depend on market and measurement method. | Current manufacturer thickness data and scope. |
| “XL means 60 mm.” | Brand labels vary widely. | Exact product width for the named product. |
| “This girth requires 56 mm.” | Fit systems differ. | Identify whether rule is manufacturer, regulator or site guidance. |
| “Oil lubricant is safe with this condom.” | Material-dependent safety claim. | Manufacturer or authoritative material guidance. |
| “This product is sold in Thailand.” | Availability changes. | Current Thailand retailer/manufacturer listing. |
| “This product is registered.” | Regulatory claim. | Official register or clearly stated regulatory identifier. |
A source can change after an article is written. Manufacturer pages are redesigned, product variants are renamed and pharmacy listings can be replaced without preserving the previous specification. For important technical claims, the editorial workflow should preserve enough context to identify what was checked: the product name, market or country, measurement type, relevant value and review date.
Where the publishing workflow supports it, screenshots, saved notes or source excerpts may be retained internally to help resolve later disputes. This is especially useful when a manufacturer changes a width, removes an older product or publishes a new regional variant under a familiar name. Internal source records do not replace the live citation, but they make later review more reliable.
A link is useful only when it supports the sentence attached to it. We aim to avoid “citation decoration”—adding a respected source to a paragraph even though that source does not establish the specific technical claim being made.
Product dimensions should link to a product specification or a source that actually states those dimensions. A health-use statement should link to the relevant health guidance. A country registration claim should link to the relevant regulator or register where reasonably possible.
When one source supports only part of a sentence, the wording should be narrowed or split so that sourced fact and editorial interpretation remain distinct.
Not every fact becomes stale at the same speed. Unit conversions such as inches to millimetres are stable. Product availability, package dimensions, brand labels and country retail ranges can change much faster. Regulatory pages can also be amended or replaced.
| Information Type | Typical Review Priority | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Current product width / material / size label | High | Manufacturers can reformulate, rename or regionalise products. |
| Country retail availability | High | Stock and regional ranges change frequently. |
| Medical-device rules / registration guidance | High when referenced | Regulatory requirements can be amended. |
| Public-health correct-use guidance | Periodic | Authoritative recommendations should remain current. |
| Measurement definitions | Lower | Core concepts are relatively stable. |
| Exact mathematical conversions | Low | Conversion constants do not depend on market changes. |
A product can keep the same name while its regional pack, dimensions or description changes. If a current official product page conflicts with a value previously published on our site, we re-check whether the source refers to the same country and product generation.
If the new specification is clearly current, the page should be updated. If both versions are still sold in different markets, the article should preserve the regional distinction instead of declaring one global number. Where a change could materially affect a comparison or calculator, related pages should also be reviewed so that the old number does not remain elsewhere on the site.
If we identify a material factual error—such as the wrong nominal width, an incorrect formula, a misquoted regulator requirement or an outdated product specification—we aim to correct the page. The correction should fix the affected section and any dependent elements such as tables, calculators or FAQs.
Minor style changes, spelling corrections or wording improvements do not necessarily require a visible correction note. Material changes that alter a reader's understanding may be documented under our Corrections Policy.
Readers can help identify changed product specifications, broken links, regional differences or numerical inconsistencies. A reader report is treated as a lead to investigate, not automatically as proof that the published page is wrong.
We verify the reported issue against the strongest available evidence and then update the article when the evidence supports a correction.
Commercial relationships, advertising or affiliate arrangements should not change the factual standard applied to a product. A sponsored or monetised product should not receive an invented advantage, a hidden correction or a looser evidence requirement.
Where relevant, commercial relationships are handled under our Advertising Disclosure. Fact-checking remains focused on whether a claim is supported.
No fact-checking system can guarantee that every external page remains unchanged after publication. Manufacturer specifications can change, retailer pages can be replaced and regulations can be updated.
This policy describes the standard we aim to apply when researching, publishing, reviewing and correcting content. Readers should still check the current product pack and manufacturer instructions before use, especially where fit, materials, expiry or safety are concerned.
This policy was prepared for the site's current editorial workflow and was last reviewed in August 2026. It may be updated as the site adds new calculators, country guides, brands, data sources or review procedures.
Common questions about source quality, condom specifications, health claims, country pages, calculators, AI use and corrections.