Trust & Compliance
How we keep content accurate and current
Evidence-led, clinically reviewed and dated — with a clear source hierarchy and a fast correction route.
Our standards
Research, review, date, correct
- Source hierarchyAuthoritative primary sources first — NHS, MHRA, ICO, NICE, peer-reviewed literature.
- Clinical reviewClinical content reviewed by our Clinical Director before publication.
- Dating & review cadenceEach page shows a last-reviewed date and is re-checked on a schedule.
- Corrections & feedbackA clear route to report issues; we log and prioritise fixes.
The source hierarchy
What we trust, and in what order
Health information is only as reliable as the evidence behind it, so every clinical page and tool is built on a deliberate hierarchy of sources. We start with UK statutory and clinical authorities — NHS England, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) — because these set the guidance that UK clinicians and organisations are expected to follow. Where a question is clinical rather than regulatory, we draw on peer-reviewed literature, systematic reviews and recognised specialty guidelines, preferring recent, well-conducted work over isolated or preliminary findings.
Below that sit reputable secondary references and professional bodies, used to corroborate rather than originate a claim. We are explicit about what we exclude: we do not scrape restricted or paywalled content, we do not present marketing material as evidence, and we do not let a single low-quality study override a settled consensus. When sources genuinely disagree, we say so and describe the uncertainty instead of forcing a false certainty.
Provenance, on the page. Tools and medicine pages label where their information comes from, so a reader — or a buyer assessing us — can see the basis for what we publish rather than taking it on trust.
Review and currency
Dated, re-checked and corrected
Medical guidance changes, so static content is a liability. Each clinical page carries a visible last-reviewed date and enters a scheduled re-check cycle; higher-risk topics, such as medicines and anything touching dosing or safety, are reviewed more frequently than stable background material. A review is also triggered out of cycle whenever an authoritative source updates its guidance, a safety alert is issued, or a reader raises a credible concern.
Authorship
Written by clinically-literate editors who understand both the medicine and the reader.
Sign-off
Clinical content approved by the Clinical Director before it goes live.
Cadence
Risk-weighted review schedules, with out-of-cycle updates on new guidance.
Correction log
Reported issues are recorded, triaged and resolved, with the date updated.
This editorial discipline is part of a wider trust framework. It sits alongside our AI governance and human-oversight rules for any AI-assisted output, our clinical safety and risk management approach for products, and the regulatory and compliance overview that explains which standards apply to what we publish and build.
Answers
Frequently asked questions
How do you ensure content is accurate?
Clinical content is written by a clinically-literate team and reviewed by our Clinical Director against a defined source hierarchy. Each page shows a last-reviewed date, and we correct promptly when issues are raised.
What sources do you use?
We prioritise authoritative primary sources — NHS, MHRA, ICO, NICE and peer-reviewed literature — and label provenance on tools and medicine pages. We do not scrape restricted content.
How do I report an error?
Email info@medsglobalhealth.com with the page and the issue. We log feedback and prioritise corrections.
Who reviews clinical content, and what does that mean?
Clinical content is checked by a clinically-literate editor and signed off by our Clinical Director before publication. Review confirms that statements reflect current authoritative guidance, that uncertainty is represented honestly, and that nothing reads as personalised medical advice. It is editorial assurance, not a substitute for a clinician seeing a patient.
How do AI-assisted tools fit your editorial standards?
Where a tool uses AI to draft or summarise, the same source hierarchy, human review and intended-use boundaries apply. Outputs are framed as information, not diagnosis or triage, and we describe the limitations alongside the result. This aligns with the human-oversight principles in our AI governance approach.
Spotted something to improve?
Tell us — we review all feedback and correct promptly.