Best matched to
Supplement dosage, medication interactions, and pharmacy-sensitive safety
Medical Review Process
Editorial review is not medical review
A credential badge is not the review itself. Medical-review language only appears when a relevant clinician has evaluated the claims and accepted responsibility for the completed review.
A six-step clinical review workflow
Review must be relevant, documented, and visible to the reader. It is not a one-time name placement.
-
01
Identify clinical risk
We flag dosage, interactions, contraindications, pregnancy, kidney disease, persistent symptoms, and condition-specific claims before review begins.
-
02
Match the reviewer to the subject
The reviewer must hold a current credential relevant to the article, not simply a general wellness title.
-
03
Audit claims against sources
The reviewer checks whether each material health statement matches the population, intervention, outcome, and certainty of its cited evidence.
-
04
Correct, qualify, or remove
Unsupported certainty, unsafe language, missing limitations, and scope problems must be resolved before approval.
-
05
Record accountable sign-off
Approval records the reviewer's name, credential, profile, review date, and the clinical scope they evaluated.
-
06
Re-review material updates
A clinically reviewed article returns to review when evidence, guidance, or a material medical claim changes.
The reviewer must fit the claim
The reviewer must have a current credential relevant to the subject, such as RPh, RD/RDN, MD, or DO. Pharmacy-sensitive dosage and interaction content is best matched to an RPh; condition-specific sleep or restless-legs claims may require an MD or DO with relevant clinical experience.
Best matched to
Nutrition adequacy, dietary context, and evidence-based supplement use
Best matched to
Condition-specific symptoms, diagnosis boundaries, and clinical escalation
When external clinical review matters most
We prioritize external clinical review for dosage, medication interactions, contraindications, pregnancy, kidney disease, persistent sleep symptoms, restless legs, and other claims that could affect a reader's healthcare decision.
What the reviewer evaluates
- Whether each health claim matches the cited evidence
- Whether benefits, uncertainty, and limitations are balanced
- Whether dosage, interaction, and escalation language is safe
- Whether the article stays within education rather than diagnosis or treatment
- Whether the reviewer has any conflict that should be disclosed
What readers will see after review
A completed clinical review will show the reviewer's name, credential, profile, review date, and scope. Until those facts exist, no medical-review label or reviewedBy structured-data claim is published.
- Reviewer name and relevant credential
- Link to the reviewer's professional profile
- Date the clinical review was completed
- Scope of the review and any disclosed conflicts
Questions about a health claim?
Tell us which page and statement concerns you. Material corrections are reviewed promptly, documented in the article, and returned to clinical review when the medical conclusion could change.