1. Our Mandate: Uncompromising Clinical Accuracy
Our Purpose: The Healthroid Medical Review Policy exists for one reason: to ensure every piece of health information we publish is clinically accurate, evidence-based, and current. This policy is the cornerstone of our Expertise and Trustworthiness and is a non-negotiable step in our publishing process.
This process is managed by the Healthroid Medical Network.
2. The Healthroid Medical Network
A. Who We Are The Network is a team of credentialed, board-certified professionals from across the spectrum of medicine, health, and wellness. This includes:
- Board-Certified Physicians (MDs, DOs) in various specialties (e.g., Cardiology, Dermatology, Oncology)
- Pharmacists (PharmD)
- Licensed Psychologists, Psychiatrists, and Therapists (PhD, PsyD, LCSW)
- Registered Dietitians (RD, RDN)
- Certified Personal Trainers (CPT, CSCS) and Physical Therapists (DPT)
- Public Health Experts (MPH)
- Registered Nurses (RN, NP)
B. The Vetting Process Admission to the Healthroid Medical Network is by invitation only and requires a rigorous vetting process:
- Credential Verification: We confirm all claimed degrees, licenses, and board certifications with the relevant state and national boards.
- Expertise Assessment: We review the expert’s clinical experience, research publications, and areas of specialization.
- Background & Reference Check: We ensure a clean professional record and good standing within the medical community.
C. Our Commitment to Impartiality Our medical reviewers are compensated for their time and expertise, not for their endorsement of a product or a specific point of view. Their sole focus is on validating the accuracy and integrity of the content.
3. The Step-by-Step Medical Review Protocol
No clinical article goes live without passing this sequential process.
Step 1: Expert Assignment The editorial team assigns the article to a Medical Network member whose specialty directly matches the article’s content.
- Example: An article on statins is assigned to a board-certified cardiologist.
- Example: An article on cognitive behavioral therapy is assigned to a licensed psychologist or psychiatrist.
Step 2: The Reviewer’s Mandate (The “Clinical Checklist”) The reviewer performs a deep analysis of the article, checking for:
- Clinical Accuracy: Are all statements of fact, figures, and medical concepts correct?
- Evidence-Based: Do the cited sources (journals, studies, guidelines) robustly support the claims made in the text?
- Comprehensiveness & Risk: Is the full picture presented? Are risks, side effects, contraindications, and limitations of a treatment or recommendation clearly and appropriately explained?
- Timeliness & Consensus: Does the content reflect the most current scientific consensus and clinical guidelines? (e.g., “Does this align with the new 2025 AHA guidelines?”)
- Clarity & Safety: Is the information presented in a way that is safe, clear, and actionable for a layperson? Is all medical jargon either removed or clearly defined?
Step 3: Feedback & Resolution The reviewer provides one of three recommendations:
- Approved: The article is accurate as-is.
- Approved with Revisions: The reviewer provides direct edits or explicit feedback. The editorial team must implement these changes to the reviewer’s satisfaction.
- Rejected: The article is fundamentally flawed or inaccurate and cannot be published.
The reviewer has the final say on clinical accuracy. If a dispute arises, we defer to the expert.
Step 4: Public Attribution & The “Medically Reviewed” Stamp Once approved, the article is published with:
- The “Medically Reviewed” stamp or icon.
- The reviewer’s full name, credentials, and a link to their bio.
- The date of the most recent medical review.
4. The “Evergreen” Review Cycle
Health information is not static. Our commitment to accuracy extends beyond the publication date.
- Triggered Reviews: Our team monitors health news. If a major study is released, an FDA warning is issued, or clinical guidelines change, all related articles are immediately flagged and sent back to the Medical Network for an out-of-cycle review and update.
- Scheduled Reviews: All clinical content is placed on a 12-24 month (or shorter, for high-velocity topics) mandatory review cycle. During this cycle, the article is fully re-vetted by an expert to ensure it remains the most accurate and trustworthy resource on the topic.
