Femipro Official Website › Reference guides
Reference Guides
Two reference guides written for anyone deciding about a urinary or bladder supplement, not only for the one sold on this website. The first covers what the evidence actually supports across the category. The second is a checklist for judging any label, scored against our own product at the end.
These two pages are the least commercial thing here, and the second one scores the product this desk sells against its own checklist. It does not score well on every row.
Every page, every journal post, the bottle facts and the ingredients go through review by Dr. Jennifer Roelands, MD before they ship. We write these pages from the printed Femipro bottle and from the Supplement Facts panel photographed in our own stock images, cite public research for cranberry, bearberry, berberine, mimosa pudica and the named lactobacillus strains, and print “not published” wherever a figure is not disclosed rather than estimating it. This label publishes two blend totals and no individual amount, and that fact appears on every page where an ingredient is named. Where the seller’s marketing claims more than the bottle supports, we say so on the page. Corrections are made on the page itself and the review date moves forward. Write to [email protected]. Last reviewed September 2026 by Dr. Jennifer Roelands, MD.
Two guides, and what each is for
One about the evidence, one about the labels.
Both are written to be useful if you decide to buy nothing at all, which is the test of whether a guide on a retailer's website is worth reading. Neither repeats the product pages: the product pages describe one capsule, and these describe the aisle it sits in.
Why a retailer publishes a guide that argues against itself
The only honest answer is a checkable one.
The obvious objection to a buyer's guide on a shop website is that the shop wrote it. It is a fair objection and the only useful answer is a checkable one: look at whether the guide reaches conclusions that cost the shop money.
These two do. The first names pelvic floor muscle training as the intervention with the strongest evidence for bladder symptoms, and it is free. It reports that the Cochrane review of probiotics for preventing urinary infection is null, and the product we sell contains five probiotic strains. It reports that uva-ursi has a randomised trial that went the wrong way, and the product we sell contains uva-ursi.
The second scores our own label against a ten-point checklist and gives it three outright failures: no individual amounts, no colony count, and no third-party testing. Those rows are on the page in the same size type as the passes.
None of that makes this website neutral. Femipros earns when you buy, which is stated on the about page alongside a table of every place on this site that argues against the sale. What it does is give you something to check, which is the only kind of claim about impartiality worth making.
The sourcing behind both guides
Five rules, and the last one is the one that makes the rest worth anything.
Systematic reviews first, then trials
Where a Cochrane review exists it is the anchor, and where it is null the guide says so. Individual trials are used to fill in detail, never to overturn a review.
Every identifier checked against the database
Each PubMed record was verified for author, journal, year and title before it was cited. Guessed identifiers are how a citation list ends up pointing at a thoracic surgery paper.
Government pages opened, not assumed
FDA, ODS, NCCIH, NIDDK and MedlinePlus pages were opened and read rather than assumed. All three of those hosts refuse automated clients, and fda.gov does it with a 404, which is the same answer a genuinely dead page gives. A refusal is a reason to go and look, not a reason to conclude.
Conflicts of interest named in the citation
Where a source has an interest, the citation says so. The hydroquinone risk assessment used in both guides was written by employees of a bearberry product manufacturer, and that appears next to it every time it is used.
Null and unfavourable findings given equal weight
A guide assembled only from positive results is a marketing document. Where the evidence is null, these say null.
Which guide to read first
Depends where you are in the decision.
It depends on where you are in the decision, and the two are written to be read in either order.
If you have not decided whether to buy anything at all, start with the evidence guide. It ranks every common option in this aisle, supplements and non-supplements together, by the quality of the evidence behind it. The top two entries are not products and cost nothing, which is the single most useful thing either guide has to say.
If you have decided to buy something and are comparing labels, start with the checklist. Ten questions, two of which carry most of the weight, and a worked scorecard at the end applied to the product on this website. Take the ten questions to any bottle in any shop; they are not specific to this one.
If you already own a bottle, the checklist is still the better entry point, because questions four and five, on the non-actives line and on what the seals actually certify, can be answered in about ten seconds from the label in your hand. That is where most people discover something they did not expect.
Neither guide requires you to read the product pages first, and neither assumes you will buy. If they only work as a preamble to a purchase they are not guides, they are a funnel with footnotes.
What these guides could not establish
Four open questions and two sources we could not verify.
A guide is more useful when it says where it ran out of road, so here are the four questions we could not answer while writing these.
- What the strain codes on this label actually are. The panel names five lactobacillus strains by code. We could find no published trial under two of those designations at all. They may be proprietary names for well-characterised organisms; we cannot show that either way.
- How much of anything is in a proprietary blend. Two totals, nine ingredients, no split published. Everything downstream of that, including whether any ingredient reaches a studied dose, is unanswerable from outside.
- Whether an oral probiotic reaches the urogenital tract in useful numbers. The positive trials used a vaginal suppository. We could find no study quantifying what proportion of a swallowed dose arrives where the marketing implies.
- What continuous long-term bearberry use does. The published risk assessment covers short courses. A six-bottle order is 180 consecutive days, and nobody appears to have assessed that.
One note on how the sources here were checked, because it nearly cost this site two good citations. Several government hosts refuse automated requests: fda.gov answers a 404, which is exactly what a dead page returns, and ods.od.nih.gov answers a 403 for its own home page and for a made-up address alike. A refusal from a host like that carries no information about whether the page exists. Both were opened in a browser, both are live, and both are cited. The rule we ended up with: a citation nobody checked is not a citation, and a host that will not answer a script is a reason to open a browser rather than to conclude anything.