Editorial standards

Start with a useful task

Each guide should help a reader do something concrete: choose fields for a record, understand a unit, avoid a logging mistake, or prepare questions for an appointment. Similar searches belong on one useful page when they have the same intent.

Sources and verification

We prioritize health agencies, professional bodies, clinical guidelines, and original research. Forums help identify questions, not establish medical facts. App features are checked against the developer's current App Store listing. Publication dates and source-check dates are recorded separately.

AI assistance and its limits

AI assists with research, drafts, illustrations, and consistency checks. Every published guide receives a source check and an editorial check before release. This is not independent medical peer review. We do not invent clinicians, testimonials, first-hand experience, or study results. Generated illustrations are labeled and are not used as diagnostic evidence.

A publication slot is not a reason to publish

Our content schedule is reviewed before publication. We hold material with unsupported claims, overlapping intent, misleading titles, stale sources, or no useful addition. We prefer improving an existing guide when a proposed new page would repeat it.

Commercial transparency

We promote our own apps. Download links use App Store campaign attribution. A guide must remain useful without a download, and an app cannot substitute for professional care.

Corrections

Substantive corrections update the page and its modification date. Merely changing a date does not count as a review. Report errors through our contact page.

Search guidance

Our approach follows Google Search Essentials, people-first content guidance, and spam policies. Meeting these guidelines does not guarantee indexing, rankings, or inclusion in AI answers.