How We Research & Review Content

From a reader’s question to a draft

We define the question, intended audience and search intent, then check for overlap with existing coverage. We compare multiple sources before drafting; a search result or a product’s marketing claim is not sufficient medical evidence.

Medical claims and source URLs

Health articles require at least five reliable sources, including three high-priority sources. We favour NIH, PubMed, MedlinePlus, NHS, CDC, FDA, medical institutions and professional societies. Important claims carry numbered citations. The record stores the organisation, title, direct URL, known date and access date. Unsupported claims must be removed rather than given an invented source.

A working URL shows availability, not factual reliability. Editorial and technical checks can identify missing citations, broken links, metadata issues and inconsistencies. They do not establish medical accuracy or replace qualified clinical review. Independent medical review is not currently provided.

Writing and localisation

The English article is the editorial starting point. After its review, German and Russian versions are prepared with natural language and separate SEO wording. Medical facts, measurements, study conclusions, citations and warnings must remain consistent.

Before publication

Checks cover title, description, headings, sources, claims, image and alt, relevant internal links, canonical, hreflang and translation completeness. Images follow our editorial selection rules; generated scenes are labelled. We do not invent authors, testing experience, prices, ratings or commercial offers.

Updates and corrections

New evidence, a broken source or an identified error triggers review. We record substantial changes and recheck affected translations. There is no claim that every source is continuously monitored or that a completed technical check proves clinical accuracy.

See the editorial team, commercial disclosure and correction contact instructions.