Editorial standards
How we research and update our guidance
This page explains where the information in our articles comes from, how sources are chosen, and how pages are reviewed and corrected. It also sets out the limits of what we publish, and where we hand over to a professional.
Named sources
Every claim points to one
Rolling review
Pages are revisited on a schedule
Corrections welcome
Readers have changed pages here
Our sources
We rely on publicly available, established health information: national health services, clinical guidelines, and peer-reviewed reviews. We prefer sources that describe their methods and are updated regularly. We do not base articles on influencer content, supplement marketing or single small studies.
Where a topic is genuinely contested, we say so rather than picking the confident-sounding side. A reader comparing two wellness pages can usually tell the difference: one names where a number came from, the other asserts it.
National health services
Public guidance written for a general adult reader, with plain explanations of what applies to whom.
Preferred base
Clinical guidelines
Documents that state how recommendations were assembled, so we can follow the reasoning instead of the summary.
Preferred base
Peer-reviewed reviews
Overviews that pool several studies, so one small trial does not become the whole story.
Preferred base
Not used as a base
Influencer posts, supplement marketing, and single small studies that no one has repeated or checked.
Set aside
Source selection matters more than the number of sources. A single well-described national guideline tells you more than six blog posts that all quote each other, and it is easier for you to open and judge yourself.
How we choose and check sources
A source is useful if it is authoritative, current and relevant to a general adult reader. We check publication dates and note when guidance changes.
Authority
The organisation behind the page is one we can identify and hold accountable, not an anonymous roundup.
Currency
We read the publication date first. Advice on sleep, salt or strength training changes, and old pages can still rank well while being years out of date.
Relevance
Findings from athletes, children or hospital patients do not automatically transfer to an adult reader going about an ordinary week.
When two sources disagree, we look for the reason, usually a difference in population or study design, and explain the gap in the article. We avoid citing numbers we cannot point to a specific source for, and we do not manufacture statistics to make a point land harder. If a figure cannot be traced, it does not appear on the page.
Editorial limits
What we will not publish
We do not publish cure claims, before-and-after testimonials, guaranteed results or urgency offers. We do not sell supplements, programs or coaching, and no article is sponsored. We avoid framing ordinary habits as treatments for diagnosed conditions. If a claim cannot be supported by a credible source, it does not go on the page.
Independence, plainly stated
The site is funded in a way that does not require us to endorse products. We do not accept payment to alter editorial content, and we do not run affiliate reviews of supplements or devices. If that ever changes, it will be disclosed clearly on the relevant page, not buried in a footer.
Written for a general adult reader: ordinary routines, ordinary weeks, no clinical setting assumed.
Who writes and who reviews
Articles are written by our editorial team and reviewed internally against current guidance before publication. Every draft is read against the sources it cites, and any paragraph that leans on a claim we cannot trace is rewritten or cut.
We are an educational publisher, not a clinic, and we do not claim medical credentials we do not hold. Where a topic needs clinical expertise, we say so in the article and direct readers to a healthcare professional rather than offering a workaround.
Before publication
Internal review against current guidance, source by source, with the limits of the evidence stated in the text.
Where we stop
Diagnosis, medication and treatment decisions belong with a professional who can see your history.
How often content is updated
We review pages on a rolling schedule, and we update them sooner when guidance changes. Each article shows a last-updated date so you can judge how current it is. If a date looks old to you, that is useful information and you are right to weigh it.
If you spot something out of date, the contact page is the fastest route. We read every correction and act on the ones we can verify against a source.
Corrections and how we handle them
If we publish something wrong, we fix it and, where the change is significant, we note that it was corrected. We do not quietly delete errors. Reader reports have changed articles on this site before, and we treat that as part of the process rather than a nuisance.
The bar is simple: point us at a source and we will check it.
How a report moves
-
You write in with the article and, if you have one, the source that contradicts it. A link or a document title is enough.
-
We open the source, compare it with what the article says, and check whether the two are describing the same group of people.
-
If the article is wrong, it is rewritten and the last-updated date changes. Significant changes get a short note in the text.
-
If the claim holds up, we say so and leave the page as it stands. Not every report leads to a change.
Advertising and independence
The site is funded in a way that does not require us to endorse products. Independence is the reason you can trust a "don't buy this" conclusion here.
No paid placement
No brand pays for a position in a guide, a mention, or a more favourable conclusion.
No rewritten verdicts
Nobody gets to soften a finding, delay a correction, or edit a page for a commercial reason.
Disclosure if it changes
Any future funding arrangement would be stated on the affected page in the body copy, not in small print.
The limits of general guidance
Our articles are written for a broad adult audience, which means they cannot account for your specific history, medication or condition. General guidance is a starting point for a conversation with a professional, not a substitute for one. We would rather state that limit repeatedly than imply our pages can replace individual care.
On this site, that means you will often read a paragraph about what applies to most people, followed by a clear line about who should ask a clinician first. Both belong in the same article. A guide that only carries the first half is easier to read and less useful.
You can put our standard to the test on any article: open it, look for the source behind the main claim, and check the last-updated date. If either is missing or vague, tell us through the contact page and we will look at it.
Reader questions
Straight answers about how this site is made
These are the three questions readers send us most often. If yours is not here, the contact page reaches the same people who write the articles.
Do you have medical professionals review every article?
Articles are reviewed internally against established guidance, and we draw on publicly available clinical sources. We do not claim clinical review where it has not happened, and you will not find a reviewer badge on a page that did not earn one.
Can I suggest a correction?
Yes. Use the contact page and include a source if you have one. We check every report and update articles where warranted. If a correction changes the advice, the note sits in the article itself rather than in a change log nobody reads.
Is the site sponsored?
No. Articles are not sponsored, and we do not sell supplements or programs. Any future funding arrangement would be disclosed on the relevant page, in the body of the page, at the point where it matters.
Send a correction, a source or a topic
Reader reports reach the people who write and check the pages. Tell us the article, what looks wrong or missing, and any source you want us to open. You do not need to be a professional to send one, and you do not need to be certain before you write.
Editorial desk
- [email protected]
- +356 2134 5678
- 14 Triq il-Kbira, Sliema SLM 1540, Malta
- Monday to Friday, 9:00 AM – 6:00 PM
We answer reader mail during working hours. Reports with a source attached are the quickest to act on.