Editorial standards

Sources & evidence

Our source standard is to use material suited to the claim: official examination bodies for exam rules and blueprints, and professional guidelines, established references, and research literature for clinical teaching. Recommendations can differ by country, setting, and publication date; those differences matter.

Exam guides include official references so learners can check the source. Dates, fees, eligibility, and examination formats may change between updates. Check the awarding body’s current guidance before making an application or booking an examination.

How we use AI

AI can support research, first drafts, explanations, educational articles, exam guides, and supporting illustrations. It can also help identify inconsistencies and suggest revisions. Every item receives human review before publication, including material created with AI assistance.

Our article and exam-guide workflows combine AI review and automated checks with human review before publication. Together, these reviews assess source support, consistency, and content quality. Both people and AI can miss errors, so we welcome suggestions and corrections through our contact page.

AI may also provide feedback on written practice answers. This feedback is a learning aid, not an official examination result. Human review of published learning material does not mean that each personalized AI response is individually reviewed; please contact us if feedback appears incorrect or unclear.

Human review & oversight

Every item is reviewed by a person before publication. Human review considers the teaching point, clarity, supporting evidence, and whether the material is appropriate for its intended audience. Automated approval alone is not a substitute for this review.

Human review is an important safeguard, not a guarantee of perfection. People and AI can both miss errors, misunderstand a source, or overlook a change in guidance. We welcome questions, suggestions, and corrections from learners and clinicians through our contact page.

Our review priorities include ambiguous answers, conflicting recommendations, and topics where an error could have serious consequences, such as medication doses, emergency care, pregnancy, and care of children.

Learning material with a purpose

Our question-writing standard is a clear learning objective, enough clinical context to reason from, and an explanation that makes the answer useful. Multiple-choice distractors should be plausible; written and clinical cases should make their expected reasoning clear.

We aim to create original teaching material, not reproduce protected exam questions or copy reference works. Each specialty should offer its own clinical context and educational value. Changing a specialty name or article title is not enough to make useful new content.

Updates & corrections

Content may need to change as evidence, exam requirements, or our understanding improves. A substantive concern can lead to a correction, further review, or removal from publication. We do not promise that every page reflects every newly published guideline in real time.

To report an issue, use the relevant specialty’s contact page or contact the network. Include the page link or question identifier, what appears incorrect, and a supporting reference if available. Please do not include patient-identifiable information.

Editorial independence

Source selection and teaching conclusions should be guided by educational relevance and evidence. Paid promotion or a material commercial relationship connected to a recommendation should be clearly disclosed. A source citation is not an endorsement by its author or organization.

These are educational resources for examination preparation. They do not replace clinical judgment, local protocols, or advice for an individual patient. Our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy explain the wider conditions for using the network.