Everything Stillr publishes about Restless Legs Syndrome is written for people who have already been given a lot of confident advice that did not work. That is the standard this page exists to hold: if we cannot point to where a number came from, we do not print the number.
Any figure in a Stillr article carries the author, the year and the journal in the body text, not tucked into a reference list at the bottom or hidden in code. If you can read a percentage on this site, you can see who measured it and when, in the same sentence.
An approved source list governs which numbers may be used at all. A statistic that is not on that list does not go into an article, however often it appears elsewhere online. This is why several figures that circulate widely in Restless Legs content do not appear anywhere on this site.
Describing a study as stronger than it was is the most common failure in health content, and it is the one we watch hardest. Where a study had no control group, we say so on the page. Where a comparison came from separate historical trials rather than a concurrent arm, we say that too.
A worked example. Kuhn et al. (2016), in the Journal of the American Osteopathic Association, is the study most often cited in favour of compression for Restless Legs. It followed 30 adults using targeted foot compression over eight weeks and recorded a 90 per cent improvement on the Clinical Global Impression scale, against the 63 per cent published for ropinirole.
It is regularly described online, and was once described on this site, as a head-to-head trial against medication. It was not. It was a single-arm, open-label study with no control group, and the drug figure came from a meta-analysis against three earlier separate trials.
On 14 August 2026 we corrected every page citing that study. A follow-up audit on 31 August 2026 found four pages the first sweep had missed, and those were corrected too. Every page citing Kuhn now states the no-control-group limitation. The audit now runs weekly rather than when somebody remembers.
Stillr articles carry no individual byline, and that is deliberate rather than an oversight. A named author on a health page usually implies clinical authority, and inventing that would be worse than omitting it. Stillr does not employ clinicians, does not have an editorial board, and does not claim medical review.
What stands behind the writing instead is the sourcing rule above: named studies, stated designs, stated limits, corrected in public when wrong. Judge the articles on whether the citations hold up, because that is the only claim being made for them.
Stillr is a wellness brand. It is developing a drug-free compression sleeve worn overnight to calm Restless Legs Syndrome, designed in Australia. Stillr is pre-launch and is not yet available for supply.
Nothing published here is medical advice, and none of it is a substitute for a GP, neurologist or sleep physician. We do not describe Stillr as a treatment or a cure, we do not tell anyone to stop a prescribed medicine, and we say plainly when the evidence for something is thin, including when that something is compression.
Stillr sells a compression product, so it has an obvious interest in compression research looking good. The check on that is publishing the weaknesses as well: small sample sizes, missing control groups, and the fact that the strongest compression trials involve devices other than ours. Where an alternative has better evidence than compression, our articles say so.
You can read the full evidence base, including every trial's sample size and limitations, in our review of the compression evidence, or browse the full article index.