How medical guide review is tied to the exact published version
Medically substantive patient guides must remain outside the public site until a qualified reviewer approves the exact content version and a separate publication approval is recorded. Draft status alone never authorizes publication.
Reviewer fit
The assigned reviewer should have qualifications relevant to the guide's subject and risk. General consultation-preparation content and specialty-specific decision content may require different reviewers. Author and medical reviewer should be distinct unless an approved exception is recorded.
What the reviewer checks
The review covers factual accuracy, source quality, scope, limitations, risk language, and whether the guide avoids individualized diagnosis or treatment direction. Higher-risk topics such as cancer treatment, heart procedures, or major surgery require subject-relevant review.
Version approval and re-review
The review record must match a deterministic digest of the guide's reviewable fields and body. A published guide should display its reviewer and dates. When the text changes or the next-review date passes, publication must stop until the required approval is current again.
A medical-review label describes review of a specific educational content version; it does not make the guide medical advice, guarantee completeness, or replace diagnosis, treatment, emergency care, or an individual consultation.
Continue with useful details
Start by telling us what you need clarity on.
The first call is free. A case-based consultation quote comes before payment.
Book the free fit call