Accountability
We publish corrections. Openly, and with the date attached.
Health guidance moves, and writers make mistakes. A publication’s honesty shows in what it does next. This is our commitment on both counts.
- Acknowledged in 2 business days
- Factual errors fixed on sight
Report something
If you have found a factual error, an outdated recommendation, or a source that does not support the claim it is attached to, tell us. Include the article and, if you can, what the correct position is and where it comes from. That is not a requirement. A simple “this looks wrong” is welcome too.
Factual error
A number, mechanism, dose or claim that is simply wrong. These take priority over everything else and are corrected as soon as we can verify them.
Outdated guidance
Clinical recommendations and screening intervals change. If an article reflects superseded guidance, it needs updating even though it was accurate when written.
Citation problem
A source that is broken, misread, or does not actually support the sentence it sits beside. We treat this as seriously as a factual error, because it undermines the whole method.
Unclear or misleading wording
Technically accurate but easy to misread. On health topics that is a real problem, and we would rather rewrite it than defend the technicality.
What happens next
We acknowledge it
Within two business days. You will hear from a person, not an autoresponder telling you the matter is closed.
We check it against the source
We go back to the cited research, not to our own article. If the source does not say what we claimed, you are right and we change it.
We fix it and date it
Clear factual errors are corrected promptly. The article’s last-updated date changes so the revision is visible rather than silent.
Substantive changes get a note
Where a correction changes the meaning or the recommendation, we add a dated correction note to the article rather than editing the history away.
We tell you the outcome
Including when we conclude no change is needed. In that case we explain our reasoning and point you to the evidence, so you can judge it yourself.
How we classify a change
The article said something untrue
A wrong figure, a misstated mechanism, a misattributed finding. Fixed promptly and, where it changes the meaning, noted on the page with a date.
The evidence or guidance moved
The article was accurate when published, but new research or revised clinical guidance has changed the picture. Rewritten and re-dated.
It was right but read wrong
Wording that invited a misreading. We rewrite for clarity; the underlying position does not change.
Typos, links and housekeeping
Spelling, broken links, formatting. Fixed quietly, because nothing about the substance has changed.
Scheduled review
We do not only wait to be told. Articles are reviewed when significant new evidence emerges, when clinical guidelines shift, and on a rolling schedule that prioritises the pages covering screening, medication and anything where being out of date could affect a health decision.
Every article displays its last-updated date. If that date looks old for a fast-moving topic, treat it as a reason to check the primary sources yourself, and tell us, because it probably means we owe the page a look.
One thing we will not do. We will not quietly delete an article to make a mistake disappear. If something was wrong enough to warrant removal, we would rather say so.
Something look wrong?
You do not need to be certain, and you do not need to cite anything. If a claim on this site does not sit right with you, send it over.