Some PlusGBUK articles contain claims about medicines, adverse effects, interactions, dependence, withdrawal, overdose or other matters where a clinical error could mislead a reader. Those pages may receive an additional review by an appropriately qualified healthcare professional.
What a clinical reviewer checks
The reviewer considers whether significant medical claims are accurate, whether the article reflects the strength of the available evidence, whether important risks or limitations are missing and whether the wording could be misunderstood by a non-specialist reader.
Reviewers may also check terminology, contraindications, interaction warnings, descriptions of dependence or withdrawal, emergency advice and the distinction between supervised treatment and unregulated use.
What medical review does not mean
A reviewed article is still general educational material. It is not a diagnosis, prescription or treatment plan. The reviewer has not examined the reader and cannot account for an individual’s medical history, other medicines, allergies, pregnancy, age, substance use or current symptoms.
Reviewer identity
Where an article is marked as medically or clinically reviewed, the named reviewer should have genuine, verifiable qualifications relevant to the subject. PlusGBUK does not use invented credentials or attach a reviewer name to an article that the person did not review.
Review dates
A review date indicates when the clinical review took place. An article may later be edited for spelling, formatting, links or minor clarity without requiring a new clinical review. A substantive medical change should trigger a fresh evidence check and, where appropriate, another clinical review.
Review pending
If a page is marked as awaiting review, readers should not interpret that label as a completed medical review. The article may still have been researched and edited, but the additional clinical review has not yet been completed.
Questions about our review process can be sent to [email protected].