The six commitments
1. Every clinical claim is sourced.
No statement about efficacy, side effects, or eligibility is published without a peer-reviewed source, FDA/CDSCO label, or guideline citation. Sources are visible on every clinical page in the “Sources cited” section.
2. Every clinical page has a named reviewer.
No anonymous medical advice. Every clinical page lists the medical reviewer's name, credentials, and the date of last review. If a reviewer has changed since initial publication, the byline reflects the most recent reviewer.
3. Every page lists when it was last reviewed.
Medical evidence evolves. We re-review every clinical page at minimum every 12 months. The last-reviewed date is visible on every page. Pages older than 12 months display a banner notifying readers.
4. We disclose what we don't know.
Where evidence is mixed, conflicting, or absent, we say so explicitly. We do not cherry-pick positive findings. We do not omit limitations.
5. We disclose how we're funded.
Top of every footer: our revenue model is transparent. We do not accept money from drug manufacturers or treatment centers for editorial coverage. See our About page for full funding disclosure.
6. We correct errors publicly.
A correction log is maintained at /corrections listing every change made to substantive content. Readers can submit corrections at any time and receive an acknowledgment within 48 hours.
Our content workflow
- Topic selection — based on patient questions we're asked, emerging evidence, and gaps in available information.
- Research — draws from peer-reviewed literature, FDA/CDSCO documentation, professional guidelines, and primary trial data.
- Drafting — written for an 8th-grade reading level on patient-facing pages, with sources cited inline.
- Editorial review — checked for clarity, voice, and reading level.
- Medical review — fact-checked by a credentialed clinical reviewer.
- Compliance check — verified against FDA promotional guidance, India CDSCO, and the Drugs and Magic Remedies Act.
- Accessibility check — alt text, heading structure, contrast.
- Publication — with reviewer byline and last-reviewed date.
- Quarterly source audit — automated check for broken or retracted sources.
- Annual re-review — minimum cadence; faster if practice changes.
Sources we use
- Peer-reviewed journal articles (NEJM, Lancet, JCO, JNM, etc.)
- FDA prescribing information and labels
- India CDSCO documentation
- Professional society guidelines (NANETS, ENETS, NCCN, EAU, ESMO)
- ClinicalTrials.gov registry data
- WHO and ICMR guidance
- Patient-experience input from consented sources
Sources we don't use
- Promotional materials from manufacturers (except for FDA-required prescribing info)
- Anonymous internet forums (informative but not citable as evidence)
- Unreviewed preprints (except where clearly labeled as preliminary)
- Predatory or non-peer-reviewed journals
- Anecdotal practitioner claims without supporting data
How we handle conflicts of interest
Reviewers disclose financial relationships annually. Reviewers with material conflicts related to a specific topic may be excluded from reviewing that content. Authors disclose any relationships in bylines where material.
The organization itself does not accept money from drug manufacturers or treatment centers for content. Our patient navigator services are funded separately and do not recommend centers based on commercial relationships.
Reading level standards
Patient-facing clinical pages target a Flesch-Kincaid reading level of 8.0 or lower. Where technical terms are unavoidable, we provide plain-language explanations and link to a glossary entry.
Compliance frameworks we follow
- India: Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act 1954
- India: DPDP Act 2023 (data protection)
- India: CDSCO drug regulation guidance
- India: Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) safety guidance for nuclear medicine content
- FDA promotional guidance for drug name usage
- EMA equivalent rules where European audiences are addressed
- HONcode principles for medical content (certification applied for)
- WCAG 2.2 Level AA accessibility
Patient story standards
Every patient story is collected with signed informed consent. Patients (or caregivers) review and approve published versions. They may withdraw consent at any time. We do not pay patients to share stories. We do not edit stories to make outcomes look better than they are. We include cases where therapy didn't work.
Correction process
Anyone can request a correction via email or our contact form. Requests are acknowledged within 48 hours. Corrections are published with date and nature of change at /corrections. If a claim cannot be substantiated within 7 days of challenge, the content goes offline pending review.