Standards for useful, evidence-aware health content.
Our editorial process is designed to separate facts from interpretation, represent uncertainty honestly and keep commercial interests from controlling editorial conclusions.
Last updated: September 16, 2026
Topic selection
We choose topics for reader usefulness, public interest and relevance. Search demand may help identify questions, but it should not justify exaggerated, unsafe or misleading claims.
Research and sourcing
Writers should consult reliable sources appropriate to the claim, prioritizing clinical guidelines, systematic reviews, peer-reviewed research, recognized medical organizations and public-health agencies.
Writing standards
Articles should use plain language, distinguish association from causation, avoid miracle-cure framing and explain meaningful limitations, risks and uncertainty.
Medical review labels
A page may state that it was medically reviewed only when a qualified reviewer actually reviewed it. The reviewer and relevant credentials should be identified wherever practical.
AI-assisted work
If AI tools are used for brainstorming, organization, editing or research assistance, a human editor remains responsible for verifying factual claims, sources, safety and final wording before publication.
Updates
Health guidance can change. Materially important pages should be reviewed when new evidence, guidelines, safety information or regulatory changes make an update necessary.
Conflicts and commercial influence
Writers and editors should disclose relevant conflicts. Advertisers and sponsors should not receive control over independent editorial conclusions.
Corrections
When we identify a meaningful factual error, we aim to correct it promptly. Significant corrections may be noted on the affected page when useful to readers.
If an article does not identify a medical reviewer, readers should not assume that it received a clinician review.