Different checks must mean different things
A source-check date means an external record was consulted. Editorial acceptance means the publisher reviewed the wording, links, scope, and intended use. Medical review means a qualified clinician reviewed the exact clinical version. None of those labels is a substitute for the other two.
Clinical resources without a recorded independent review are visibly identified. They remain excluded from search indexing and Google-ad eligibility under this site's controls. Those exclusions are not evidence that Google requires every medical website to use this exact workflow; they are safeguards chosen for this publication. Do not treat an unreviewed educational page as a clinical guideline.
Sources and originality
We prefer original studies for study findings, agency records for regulatory statements, and manufacturers for their own product descriptions. We label the source type because a product description and an independent trial answer different questions. Our reading collection is not an exhaustive systematic review.
A useful resource must add something beyond a link or rewritten abstract: a decision-specific reading question, a comparison structure, a reproducible source trail, or a working communication tool. We do not copy journal abstracts, buy ready-made provider lists presented as verified, or create nearly identical city pages to attract searches.
AI assistance and human responsibility
AI may assist drafting, software, layout, and organization. It does not become the medical reviewer. The publisher is responsible for checking factual claims and arranging qualified review where needed. Source-linked text can still be incomplete or wrong; a citation is a starting point for verification, not automatic proof that the wording is correct.
Conceptual images are labeled. No generated person is presented as a clinician, patient, author, or reviewer. No generated image is presented as a treatment outcome.
Publication and updates
The administrator can edit the content and its source list. Clinical edits invalidate the existing medical-review approval and require review of the changed version. Previously approved wording should not silently inherit a review when its meaning changes.
A page-update date changes when its content is materially edited, not on every visit. Research publication years and source-check dates remain separate. A maintenance job does not fabricate editorial activity, automatically approve clinical text, or publish a medical endorsement.
Corrections
Use the contact form's correction option with the page address, relevant wording, proposed correction, and original source. Do not include personal medical information. The operator checks the report and records changes in the internal revision history. We do not promise a response deadline that we cannot support.
A material factual correction should be described in the page's correction note. Minor spelling or formatting changes may be recorded internally. A disputed interpretation should be attributed and considered against the source, not removed merely because a sponsor dislikes it.
Providers and conflicts of interest
A listing indicates information confirmed about a service, not comparative clinical quality or accreditation. Provider information requires an independent confirmation record and date. Sponsors cannot buy verification. A reviewer must disclose relevant relationships and must not be presented as independent when the relationship affects that description.
See the advertising policy for the separation between paid placements and editorial decisions. Contact the publisher when an attribution, conflict disclosure, source, or image credit appears inaccurate.