Editorial policy

Standards

Editors distinguish a provider’s claim from an independently checked fact and avoid unqualified efficacy, safety, equivalence, or legality statements.

• Medical and regulatory content requires qualified review.
• AI-generated drafts remain unpublished until reviewed.
• Material corrections retain an audit history.

Conflicts

Reviewers must disclose material personal or commercial relationships. Sponsorship teams cannot assign verification status or suppress corrections.

Source hierarchy

Editors prefer primary and authoritative sources: regulator and licensing-board records, FDA and FTC materials, peer-reviewed research, clinical-trial records, official organization pages, and dated provider publications. Secondary reporting can identify a lead but should not replace an available primary record.

• Every material provider fact should be traceable to a visible source and observation date.
• Provider marketing language is attributed and rewritten without adopting unsupported outcome claims.
• Time-sensitive regulatory statements are checked against the current agency record before publication.

Health and regulatory content

Articles distinguish approved drug products, off-label prescribing, compounded preparations, investigational substances, and research-only products. Evidence for one product, route, population, or formulation is not transferred to another without support. Content explains uncertainty and directs readers to current primary sources rather than making treatment recommendations.

• Medical review status is disclosed on each guide.
• Content awaiting required review is kept out of search indexing.
• The directory does not invent a named reviewer or credential; reviewer identity will be published only when a qualified person has actually accepted responsibility for the review.

Updates and accountability

Published work includes a date and correction path. Editors revise material when sources change, a factual error is substantiated, or new evidence materially changes the explanation. Substantive corrections are handled through the correction workflow and are not traded for commercial consideration.

• Editorial, methodology, verification, and advertising policies are public.
• Corrections are evaluated against evidence and documented.
• AI may assist research organization, but it does not publish or approve material without human review.