Our editorial standard
DiseasesConditions.org aims to publish medical reference material that is clear, sourceable and clinically responsible. Editorial decisions are made around accuracy, usefulness, transparency and reader safety rather than around search-engine wording alone.
How an article is prepared
Editors build a structured draft from identifiable medical sources. The draft is checked for terminology, scope, internal consistency and alignment between narrative text and structured modules such as symptoms, diagnostic pathways, treatment summaries and FAQs.
What “Medically reviewed” means
A page receives the Medically reviewed status only after a named clinician has reviewed the relevant medical content. Reviewer assignment alone is not sufficient.
Reviewers may correct inaccurate or misleading statements directly and may add comments based on their own clinical judgment or experience. We particularly value observations about warning signs, common patient misunderstandings, practical counselling, real-world presentation and factors that change assessment or management.
Not every reviewer comment is published verbatim. Some are incorporated into the article text, some remain part of the editorial record, and selected observations may appear publicly as attributed clinician comments. Published clinician observations may be lightly edited for grammar, clarity and length without changing their clinical meaning. An article may also receive input from more than one clinician.
The medical review date shown on a page is the date of the first substantive clinician comment in that article’s review record. Later reviewer input may update the article without moving this visible review date; later review activity is tracked separately in the editorial record.
Evidence-based status
Evidence-based indicates that the page has been prepared with attributable medical sources. It does not imply that a clinician has reviewed the page unless the separate Medically reviewed attribution is shown.
Corrections and updates
Material may be updated when guidance changes, a reviewer identifies an error, a source becomes outdated, or the editorial team finds that wording could create a clinically important misunderstanding. Substantive medical corrections take priority over cosmetic rewriting.
Report a correction
Readers and clinicians can report a suspected medical inaccuracy through our contact page. Potential patient-safety issues and substantive medical errors are prioritised for editorial review.
Use of artificial intelligence
AI-assisted tools may be used to support research organization, drafting, editing, consistency checks or production workflows. They are not treated as medical authorities. Medical claims are expected to remain traceable to appropriate sources, and clinician review is performed by the named human reviewer.
Editorial independence
Editorial and medical-review decisions are not sold to sponsors or advertisers. If commercial relationships are introduced, sponsored material or advertising will be separated from medical editorial content and labelled appropriately.
Scope and limitations
Our content is general educational information. It cannot account for an individual reader’s history, examination, laboratory results, medications or local standard of care, and it does not create a doctor-patient relationship.