Editorial standards

Every page follows the same process, in the same order, and states its review date. This page explains that process and names the bodies whose public guidance the library follows.

How a topic is written

A topic begins with a question a reader is likely to arrive with, phrased the way a reader would phrase it. The page is then built to answer that question in the first hundred words, before any explanation. Background comes second, because a reader who is worried about a symptom should not have to scroll past three paragraphs of anatomy to find out whether the symptom is serious.

Each topic then follows a fixed structure. A short summary box lists the three to five things worth taking away. The body explains what the condition or subject is, what typically causes it, what usually helps, and what a clinician can offer. A box near the end sets out the circumstances in which a symptom should be assessed promptly. A closing block names the bodies whose guidance the page follows, and the page carries the date on which it was last reviewed.

What the library will not print

No dosages, no drug names, no treatment schedules and no specific prescription products. Those depend on an individual assessment and belong in a consultation. No success rates unless they are widely agreed and stable, because a figure taken from one context and repeated out of it does more harm than no figure at all.

No invented citations. No study titles, author names, journal names or publication years appear anywhere in the library, because inventing them is the easiest way to make a page look authoritative and the fastest way to make it dishonest. Where guidance is being followed, the body responsible is named in plain text and the reader can look it up.

No named authors with professional titles, no testimonials, no case studies presented as real people, and no claim of accreditation, endorsement or affiliation with any organisation. The site is independent and unaffiliated, and the bodies named below have no connection to it.

Hedging, and when it is used

Health writing goes wrong in two directions. It overclaims, promising that an approach works when the evidence is thin, or it hedges everything so heavily that a reader cannot tell whether anything is known at all. The rule used here is simple: state plainly what is well established, say clearly when something is common and harmless, and mark the limits explicitly when the evidence is genuinely uncertain. Phrases such as "usually", "in most people" and "the evidence is limited" carry meaning on these pages and are not used as padding.

Review

Pages carry a review date. A review checks that the description of the condition still matches current public guidance, that the red flag list is complete, that nothing has been overstated, and that any change in recommended practice is reflected. Where guidance has changed, the page is rewritten rather than patched. The current review date across the library is September 2026.

The guidance this library follows

Topics are written to be consistent with the public guidance and patient information published by national health services and specialist professional bodies. The principal sources are listed here as homepages, so that a reader can search them directly rather than relying on a summary.

Naming these bodies indicates the guidance a page follows. It does not indicate any relationship with them, and none of them has reviewed, approved or endorsed anything on this site.

Reporting an error

Errors matter more than tone. If a page states something incorrectly, omits a red flag symptom, or describes practice that has since changed, a message to the address on the contact page is welcome. Corrections are made to the page and the review date is updated.