Editorial Governance · Evidence Transparency

Fact-Checking Policy

How we evaluate medical claims, research findings, statistics and references—and how we communicate uncertainty, correct errors and maintain editorial accountability.

Top Medical Health Care Center · Effective date: November 7, 2026 · Policy review: periodically and when material standards change

Health information can influence decisions about symptoms, prevention, medicines and care. Our fact-checking policy sets out the standards we use to assess factual accuracy and source support in health-related content. It is designed to make our editorial approach understandable to readers—not to claim accreditation, clinical authority or a level of review that has not actually taken place.

Important transparency statement: This page describes our editorial standards and intended verification framework. It does not mean that every article has undergone every step below, that every article has been medically reviewed, or that a particular claim has been independently certified. Article-level author, reviewer and update information should be relied upon only when it is explicitly displayed and supported by a documented record.

Medical research editors examining scientific evidence, verifying medical claims, analyzing research data and checking healthcare references for Top Medical Health Care Center.

A professional medical publishing and scientific research environment illustrating the fact-checking process at Top Medical Health Care Center. Healthcare research editors examine scientific publications, verify medical claims, evaluate clinical evidence, analyze statistical data and review research references to support accurate, transparent and evidence-based health information. The visual represents editorial fact-checking principles, scientific integrity, research quality assessment and responsible healthcare publishing.

1. Purpose and scope

Top Medical Health Care Center publishes health and medical information for general educational use. This policy explains the principles used to assess material factual claims, scientific references, numerical statements and health-related explanations before publication and when content is reconsidered.

The policy applies to editorial material such as disease and condition explainers, prevention and wellness articles, medicine-related information, public-health topics, research summaries, statistics, and educational tools where factual accuracy matters. The depth of checking should be proportionate to the topic, the potential consequences of an error, the complexity of the evidence and the intended reader.

Fact-checking is not a guarantee that information is complete, universally applicable or free from uncertainty. Scientific knowledge changes; studies may conflict; recommendations can differ by country, age group, clinical circumstance and date. We aim to represent those limits fairly rather than presenting uncertain findings as settled facts.

This policy is an editorial framework. It should not be interpreted as proof that a specific article has completed every process described here. Where an article identifies a named author, medical reviewer or update date, those details should reflect the actual documented work on that article.

2. YMYL and E-E-A-T principles

2.1 Why health content requires care

Medical, health, wellness and public-health information may fall within Google's “Your Money or Your Life” (YMYL) subject areas because inaccurate or misleading information can affect a person's wellbeing or decisions. The level of risk varies by subject and by the way information is presented. A general explanation of a common term does not necessarily carry the same risk as emergency guidance, medication dosing or advice about a serious condition.

For that reason, higher-risk content calls for more careful sourcing, clearer qualification, appropriate professional review where needed, and prominent safety context. We consider potential effects on diagnostic understanding, treatment discussions, medication safety, preventive care, public-health awareness, and decisions made by patients and caregivers.

2.2 Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness and Trustworthiness

We use the concepts commonly described as E-E-A-T—Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness and Trustworthiness—as a useful editorial lens. Trustworthiness is central: readers should be able to understand who is responsible for content, what evidence supports important statements, what limitations apply and how to report an error.

Experience: relevant first-hand experience may add context when it is genuine, appropriate and clearly identified. Personal experience is not a substitute for clinical evidence.
Expertise: technical medical claims should be supported by suitable evidence and, when warranted, assessed by a qualified healthcare professional with relevant expertise.
Authoritativeness: clear editorial accountability, reliable sourcing and accurate representation of credentials help readers assess the publisher and its contributors.
Trustworthiness: transparent sourcing, honest limitations, conflict disclosures, correction practices and protection of reader information support trust.

Search transparency: E-E-A-T is not a single independent Google ranking factor. A policy page, trust badge, author box or structured-data implementation does not guarantee search rankings, indexing or rich results. Our purpose is to improve the integrity and clarity of the information we publish.

3. Fact-checking, medical review and general editing

These are related but distinct activities. One does not automatically replace another. The person responsible for a task should have the relevant competence, and the page should not imply that a task was completed unless there is a record supporting that representation.

Dimension	Fact-checking	Medical review	General editing
Primary purpose	Verify factual statements and source support.	Assess clinical accuracy, interpretation and safety.	Improve language, structure and readability.
Core responsibility	Claims, statistics, citations, dates and context.	Clinical meaning, relevance, limitations and risk.	Grammar, clarity, consistency and presentation.
Evidence or standard	Original sources, datasets and traceable records.	Relevant guidelines and clinical evidence.	Editorial style and communication standards.
Appropriate role	Fact-checker or research contributor with suitable skills.	Qualified healthcare professional with relevant expertise.	Editor or copy editor.
Important limitation	Does not independently authorize treatment advice.	Does not automatically verify every citation or calculation.	Does not establish medical or scientific expertise.

A citation can be genuine yet fail to support the wording attached to it. A clinically reviewed article can still contain a numerical or bibliographic error. A well-edited article can still be scientifically inaccurate. We therefore avoid using these terms interchangeably.

A “Medically Reviewed” label, named reviewer credit or reviewer credential must be displayed only when a real, appropriately qualified professional has completed and documented the stated review. We do not invent reviewer identities, licenses, affiliations or approvals.

3.1 Editorial roles and accountability

Authors prepare the article and are responsible for accurate attribution and disclosure of relevant limitations.
Researchers locate and assess relevant literature, datasets and authoritative guidance.
Fact-checkers examine material claims, citations, dates, calculations and source alignment.
Medical reviewers, when engaged, assess clinical accuracy and safety within their professional competence.
Copy editors improve clarity, grammar, consistency and readability without changing scientific meaning.
Managing editors or publishing administrators oversee workflow, publication controls and maintenance as assigned.

These roles may be combined in a small publishing operation only where the person is competent to perform the relevant task. Combining roles does not remove the need to disclose what was actually done.

4. Source hierarchy and acceptance standards

We select sources according to the question being answered, the population and jurisdiction involved, the evidence design, publication date and known limitations. The categories below are a practical guide—not an automatic ranking in which every source in one tier is always superior to every source in another.

Tier A — Governmental, regulatory and clinical authorities

For relevant public-health, regulatory and guideline questions, authoritative resources may include the World Health Organization (WHO), U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Health Canada, Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC), and recognized national guideline bodies.

Tier B — Systematic reviews and evidence synthesis

Depending on the question, useful sources include systematic reviews, meta-analyses, evidence syntheses, clinical practice guidelines with transparent methods and Cochrane Reviews. Their methods, search dates, inclusion criteria, certainty assessments and applicability still need evaluation.

Tier C — Primary scientific research

Primary studies may include randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies, cross-sectional studies, diagnostic-accuracy studies, qualitative research and epidemiological studies. Study design should match the claim. For example, an observational association alone does not establish that one factor caused another.

Tier D — Academic and institutional resources

Recognized academic medical centers, university research institutions, professional medical societies and reputable health research publications can provide useful explanations and context. We consider their expertise, transparency, references, date and whether the material reflects consensus or an individual viewpoint.

Tier E — Discovery and preliminary sources

Preprints, press releases, personal blogs, social media posts, anonymous forums, commercial brochures and AI-generated references may help identify a topic or locate an original source. They should not ordinarily serve as the sole support for a material medical claim. Preprints have not necessarily completed peer review; promotional material may have commercial interests; social posts can omit context; and AI-generated citations may be fabricated.

Source selection is question-dependent. Institutional reputation alone does not validate every statement. We consider whether the source is primary or secondary, whether it is current, whether its methods are appropriate, whether the cited population matches the claim, and whether later evidence or corrections change its interpretation.

4.1 PubMed, peer review and publication status

PubMed is a literature discovery database. A record being indexed in PubMed does not mean that NIH or the National Library of Medicine endorses the study, its conclusions or its quality. Indexing is not a substitute for critical appraisal.

Where relevant, we check the journal and publication record to understand whether and how a paper was peer reviewed.
We identify preprints as preliminary research when they are discussed.
We check for expressions of concern, corrections, retractions or withdrawals where material to the claim.
We trace citations to the original publication or authoritative record rather than relying only on a search snippet or another article's summary.
We avoid describing a study as definitive merely because it appears in a recognized database or journal.

5. Research quality and evidence assessment

We assess research in context rather than judging it by its title, journal name or statistical significance alone. The questions below help identify strengths, weaknesses and limits of applicability. Not every item applies equally to every research design.

Research question: Is the question clear, relevant and appropriately framed?
Study population: Who was studied, where, and do the participants resemble the population discussed?
Study design: Is the design suitable for the question, such as intervention, prognosis, prevalence or diagnostic accuracy?
Sample size: Is the sample adequate for the stated analysis, and are precision and power limitations discussed?
Comparator and control: Are comparison groups appropriate and sufficiently described?
Endpoints: Are primary and secondary outcomes clearly defined and relevant?
Statistical significance: Are p-values interpreted cautiously and not treated as proof of importance or truth?
Clinical significance: Is the size of the observed effect meaningful to patients or practice?
Confidence intervals: Do they communicate the precision and plausible range of the estimate?
Risk of bias: Could selection, measurement, performance, detection, attrition or reporting bias affect the findings?
Confounding: Have important alternative explanations and confounding variables been considered?
Publication bias: Could selective publication or selective outcome reporting distort the evidence base?
Funding and conflicts: Are funding sources and relevant financial or non-financial interests disclosed?
Limitations: Are the authors' limitations and any additional limitations acknowledged?
Consistency: Are results consistent with other suitable evidence, and have they been independently replicated where possible?
Publication status: Is the paper current, corrected, under an expression of concern, retracted or superseded?

5.1 Evidence appraisal tools and guidance

GRADE: a framework used to assess certainty in a body of evidence and the strength of recommendations. Certainty can be affected by risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness, imprecision and publication bias, among other considerations.
PRISMA 2020: a reporting guideline intended to improve transparency in systematic reviews. Reporting completeness does not, by itself, prove that a review's methods or conclusions are sound.
Cochrane Handbook: methodological guidance for conducting and interpreting systematic reviews of interventions.
Risk-of-bias tools: design-appropriate tools can help assess potential systematic errors. A checklist score should not be treated as a substitute for reasoned appraisal.

We distinguish the certainty of evidence from the confidence of an individual author or the prominence of a publication. Where evidence is limited, inconsistent or indirect, the article should say so in language readers can understand.

6. Claim-by-claim, statistical and citation verification

6.1 Identify material claims individually

Important medical statements should be examined as claims, not assumed to be verified simply because an article contains a reference list. A claim may include several parts—for example, a population, an outcome, a timeframe and a causal interpretation. Each material part should be supported or appropriately qualified.

6.2 Match the source to the exact wording

We consider whether the cited source supports the complete statement, not merely a related topic. We check whether the source concerns the same population, intervention or exposure, comparator, outcome and timeframe. We also consider whether the article overstates association as causation, generalizes beyond the study population or omits a material limitation.

6.3 Statistical verification

Where statistics are used, we check the source, date, population, denominator, units and meaning of the measure. Depending on the claim, checks may include:

Prevalence, incidence and mortality;
Relative risk, absolute risk, odds ratios and hazard ratios;
Confidence intervals and statistical uncertainty;
Sample size, denominators and missing data;
Percentage changes versus percentage-point changes;
Whether a reported estimate is adjusted or unadjusted;
Whether a result is statistically significant, clinically meaningful, both or neither.

Relative risk can sound large while the absolute difference is small. When the distinction materially affects interpretation, we aim to provide the absolute context as well. We avoid false precision and do not remove uncertainty simply to make a statement sound more decisive.

6.4 Mathematical and unit verification

For calculations, health tools and quantitative explanations, checks may include formula selection, unit conversion, decimal precision, measurement units, assumptions, rounding and population limitations. A calculation can be mathematically correct yet inappropriate for an individual or population if its assumptions do not apply.

6.5 Citation verification

When a source is cited, relevant bibliographic details may be checked against the original record:

Research title and author list;
Publication date and journal;
DOI, PMID or other stable identifier, where available;
Publisher or official source URL;
Publication and peer-review status, where relevant;
Corrections, expressions of concern, retractions or withdrawals.

No fabricated references: An AI-generated citation, DOI, PMID, quotation or statistic is not evidence. It must be independently located and checked against the original publication or authoritative record before it is used to support a material claim.

7. Medical, pharmaceutical and public-health safety verification

Some subjects carry greater potential consequences if information is wrong, incomplete or misunderstood. They require more cautious wording, stronger source selection and escalation to qualified clinical or regulatory expertise when appropriate.

7.1 Disease and diagnostic information

Relevant checks may include symptom descriptions, risk factors, differential diagnoses, diagnostic accuracy, false-positive and false-negative results, warning signs and emergency indicators. Symptoms can overlap across conditions, and online information cannot establish an individual's diagnosis.

7.2 Medication information

Medication-related claims should be checked against suitable regulatory information and reliable clinical sources. Depending on the topic, relevant details include:

Active ingredient and generic or brand name;
Formulation, strength and route of administration;
Approved or recognized indications and regulatory status;
Contraindications, warnings and precautions;
Known adverse effects and clinically important interactions;
Population-specific considerations and product-specific information.

We do not treat a medicine's approval, availability or labeling in one country as automatic proof of the same status in another country. Product formulations, indications, warnings and regulatory decisions can differ by jurisdiction and may change over time.

7.3 United States and Canadian sources

For United States regulatory questions, relevant primary resources may include the FDA and appropriate CDC or NIH resources. For Canadian questions, relevant sources may include Health Canada, its Drug Product Database, product monographs, recalls and safety alerts, as well as the Public Health Agency of Canada.

7.4 Higher-risk topics

Enhanced caution is appropriate for prescription medicines, pregnancy and breastfeeding, pediatric health, mental health, emergency conditions, experimental therapies, infectious disease outbreaks and vaccine recommendations. Where recommendations vary by jurisdiction or are rapidly changing, the relevant country, date and source should be made clear.

Educational content must not be presented as an individualized prescription, diagnosis or substitute for a consultation with a qualified healthcare professional.

8. Eight-stage fact-checking workflow

The following workflow describes the editorial framework that may be applied according to the subject, risk and scope of an article. It is not a representation that every published page has completed all eight stages. Article-level claims about completed checks must be supported by records.

Claim identification

Purpose: identify material factual, medical, statistical and causal claims.

Responsible role: author, researcher or assigned fact-checker.

Verification and output: create a claim list, identify high-risk statements and flag claims that need qualification or specialist input.

Escalation: unclear claims, potentially harmful advice or claims with no traceable source are held for clarification.

Primary source discovery

Purpose: locate the most relevant original research, authoritative guidance, regulatory record or dataset.

Responsible role: researcher or fact-checker.

Verification and output: record source title, publisher, date, identifier and the specific passage or data supporting the claim.

Escalation: where only secondary, promotional or preliminary material is available, the claim is qualified or not used as established fact.

Source authenticity and status

Purpose: confirm that the source is genuine and understand its publication status.

Responsible role: fact-checker or researcher.

Verification and output: check bibliographic details, source domain, publication type, peer-review context and relevant corrections or retractions.

Escalation: mismatched identifiers, inaccessible originals or retracted evidence require resolution before reliance.

Scientific evidence assessment

Purpose: assess whether the research design and evidence support the conclusion.

Responsible role: suitably skilled researcher; methodological expertise may be needed.

Verification and output: consider population, design, bias, precision, consistency, applicability and limitations.

Escalation: weak, indirect or conflicting evidence is described with appropriate uncertainty or excluded from a definitive claim.

Statistical and contextual verification

Purpose: check numerical accuracy and avoid misleading interpretation.

Responsible role: fact-checker, researcher or appropriately skilled data analyst.

Verification and output: check denominators, units, calculations, confidence intervals, dates and population context.

Escalation: unresolved calculations, unexplained discrepancies or missing denominators are corrected, qualified or removed.

Qualified medical review when required

Purpose: assess clinical interpretation and potential safety implications for higher-risk material.

Responsible role: a qualified healthcare professional with relevant expertise, when such a review is arranged.

Verification and output: documented review scope, reviewer identity and credentials where publication of those details is authorized.

Escalation: clinical uncertainty, unsafe wording or out-of-scope questions require revision or specialist input. No medical-review label is used without an actual review.

Editorial quality approval

Purpose: ensure that the final text communicates evidence accurately and clearly.

Responsible role: editor or publishing lead.

Verification and output: check wording, attribution, caveats, readability, internal consistency, disclosures and reader-safety language.

Escalation: unresolved material factual or safety concerns prevent approval of the affected content.

Documentation and post-publication monitoring

Purpose: retain an appropriate record and respond to material changes or reported errors.

Responsible role: assigned editorial or publishing administrator.

Verification and output: maintain relevant source notes and review updates when important evidence, guidance, corrections or safety alerts emerge.

Escalation: a material error or new safety information is assessed promptly for correction, qualification, temporary notice or removal.

9. Editorial verification classifications

The following terms may be used internally to describe the status of an individual claim during an editorial assessment. They are not government certifications, medical approvals, independent accreditations or Google verification labels.

Classification	Meaning	Editorial implication
Verified	Available reliable evidence supports the claim within the stated scope and limitations.	May be used with accurate wording, source attribution and necessary context.
Partially Verified	Some components are supported, while others remain uncertain or need qualification.	Revise the wording to separate supported elements from unresolved ones.
Context Needed	Important population, timeframe, jurisdiction, denominator or other context is missing.	Obtain context or qualify the claim before publication or continued use.
Unsupported	Adequate supporting evidence has not been established.	Do not present the claim as established fact; remove it or clearly explain the uncertainty.
Outdated	New evidence, guidance, data or regulatory information has superseded the statement.	Update, qualify, archive or remove the affected information as appropriate.
Disputed	Credible sources materially disagree or evidence remains contested.	Describe the disagreement fairly and avoid implying a consensus that does not exist.

These classifications apply to claims assessed within a defined scope. A selected claim marked “Verified” does not make an entire article verified, medically reviewed or certified. We do not display an article-wide verification badge merely because some claims or citations have been checked.

10. AI governance and human oversight

AI-enabled tools may assist with limited editorial tasks such as organizing research questions, preparing draft language, summarizing material for further checking or improving readability. Their output is treated as assistance—not as an authoritative source, clinical judgment or proof that a fact-check has been completed.

10.1 Required safeguards

Reference verification: titles, authors, journals, DOI and PMID details must be checked against genuine source records.
Claim verification: material medical claims must be independently checked against appropriate sources.
Statistical verification: AI-produced numbers, calculations, comparisons and interpretations must be checked independently.
Clinical oversight: AI cannot establish clinical truth, replace a qualified professional or independently authorize diagnosis or treatment recommendations.
Human accountability: the responsible editorial team remains accountable for what is published.
Identity and credentials: AI must not be used to fabricate doctors, licenses, degrees, hospital affiliations, reviewer signatures, testimonials or editorial approvals.
Privacy: confidential, identifiable or sensitive medical information should not be entered into AI systems unless there is an appropriate lawful basis, authorization and protective process.
Disclosure: AI involvement should be disclosed when it is material to understanding how content was produced or when disclosure is otherwise appropriate.

Non-negotiable principle: AI tools cannot independently establish clinical truth, reviewer qualifications or completed fact-checking. AI-generated references and assertions remain unverified until checked against suitable original sources.

11. Post-publication monitoring and corrections

Publication does not make an article permanently current. Research may be corrected or retracted; statistics may be replaced; regulatory decisions and clinical guidance may change; and readers may identify errors that were not previously noticed.

When a concern is received or identified, the affected statement should be assessed against the relevant source and the potential impact on readers. Depending on the finding, an editorial response may include:

Minor correction: a typographical, formatting or other non-substantive error that does not change the meaning.
Substantive factual correction: an inaccurate statement, citation, date, number or explanation that could affect interpretation.
Major clinical update: a material change needed because evidence or guidance has changed or the earlier presentation could mislead readers.
Retraction or withdrawal: removal or clear withdrawal when content cannot responsibly remain available in its current form.
Safety or regulatory update: action in response to medication recalls, safety alerts, outbreak information or other material notices.

Where appropriate, the page should explain what changed and preserve a meaningful publication or update history. Dates should reflect genuine editorial activity; they must not be changed merely to create an artificial impression of freshness.

For correction requests, use the website's editorial contact email and include the page URL, the statement in question, the reason for concern and any supporting source. Please do not send private medical records or unnecessary personal health information.

A dedicated Correction Policy page should be linked here once its canonical URL has been confirmed and the page is publicly available.

12. Conflicts of interest and editorial independence

Readers should be able to distinguish editorial judgment from commercial relationships. Advertising, sponsorship or affiliate arrangements must not determine the scientific conclusions of an article or the outcome of a fact-check.

Relevant disclosures may include:

Advertising relationships, including display advertising such as Google AdSense;
Sponsored content and other paid placements;
Affiliate links or commissions;
Pharmaceutical, device-industry or other commercial funding;
Research sponsorship and institutional support;
Reviewer, author or editor financial and non-financial interests that could reasonably be relevant.

Where a material conflict exists, it should be disclosed and considered when deciding whether additional independent assessment is needed. A commercial relationship is not, by itself, proof that a claim is false; equally, a prestigious affiliation does not make a claim automatically reliable. Editorial conclusions should follow the evidence.

13. Reader feedback, complaints and editorial contact

Readers can help identify unclear wording, broken references, outdated information and possible factual errors. We welcome specific, evidence-based feedback and consider it as part of ongoing content maintenance.

To report a concern, email [email protected]. Please provide:

The exact article URL;
The sentence, figure, table or reference concerned;
A concise explanation of the issue;
A link or citation to a reliable supporting source, if available;
The date or version of the source, where relevant.

We may assess reports for relevance, source quality, urgency and potential reader impact. Submission of a report does not guarantee a particular outcome or response time. We may not be able to provide individual medical advice or discuss confidential editorial matters.

For general information about the publisher, see About Us. For broader publishing principles, see the Editorial Policy. Links to the Medical Review Process, Medical Disclaimer, FAQ and any dedicated Correction Policy should be added after their live canonical URLs have been confirmed.

14. Medical disclaimer and reader safety

Educational information only. Content published by Top Medical Health Care Center is intended for general educational and informational purposes. It is not individualized medical advice, diagnosis or treatment, and it does not establish a clinician-patient relationship.

Website content cannot diagnose a medical condition or determine the right treatment for an individual.
Readers should consult a qualified healthcare professional about personal symptoms, diagnoses, medicines and treatment decisions.
Do not start, stop or change a prescribed medicine based solely on website content. Seek appropriate professional advice.
Health calculators and digital tools provide estimates based on stated inputs and assumptions; they are not definitive diagnoses or substitutes for clinical assessment.
For severe, rapidly worsening or potentially life-threatening symptoms, contact local emergency services or seek urgent medical care immediately.

A fact-checking process can improve the accuracy of educational material, but it cannot make general online information suitable for every person's circumstances.

Link to the dedicated Medical Disclaimer page after its live canonical URL has been confirmed.

15. Reference standards and authoritative resources

The following resources may be relevant depending on the topic, jurisdiction and research question. Their inclusion is for reference and does not imply endorsement of Top Medical Health Care Center or of any particular article.

World Health Organization — international health information and guidance.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention — U.S. public-health information.
National Institutes of Health — U.S. biomedical and health research resources.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration — U.S. medicines, biologics, devices and regulatory safety information.
Health Canada — Canadian health-product and regulatory information.
Public Health Agency of Canada — Canadian public-health information.
PubMed — biomedical literature discovery.
Cochrane Library — systematic reviews and evidence resources.
PRISMA — reporting guidance for systematic reviews.
GRADE Working Group — evidence certainty and recommendation methodology.

Source availability, guidance and web addresses can change. Editors should confirm the current official resource and the relevant publication or update date when using it.

16. Structured data and search presentation

Structured data, when used, should accurately describe visible page content and verified publisher information. Appropriate types may include WebPage, Organization and BreadcrumbList, depending on the site's existing implementation and the page's actual meaning. The Blogger theme may already generate some of these entities; duplicate or conflicting markup should be avoided.

This policy page explains editorial procedures. It is not itself a fact-check report evaluating a specific third-party claim. For that reason, the page should not use ClaimReview merely because its title contains the words “Fact-Checking Policy.” If a separate fact-check report is published, its eligibility for any fact-check-specific markup should be assessed independently against current search-engine requirements.

Valid structured data does not guarantee indexing, enhanced search appearance, ranking improvements or eligibility for a rich result. Markup must not invent reviewer credentials, medical licenses, ratings, review counts, awards, endorsements or institutional partnerships. Any JSON-LD used should be valid JSON, consistent with visible content and checked for duplication with the Blogger theme.

17. Frequently asked questions

1. What is medical fact-checking?

Medical fact-checking is the process of examining material health-related statements, statistics and citations against suitable evidence and original sources. It also considers context, uncertainty, dates and limitations.

2. How does fact-checking differ from medical review?

Fact-checking focuses on whether statements and references are accurately supported. Medical review assesses clinical meaning, accuracy and safety within a professional's expertise. Neither automatically replaces the other.

3. Are all articles medically reviewed?

No such blanket claim is made by this policy. A medical-review label or named reviewer credit should appear only when an appropriately qualified professional has actually completed and documented the stated review.

4. How are medical research sources evaluated?

Sources are assessed for relevance, study design, population, methods, risk of bias, precision, consistency, publication status, funding and limitations. The appropriate assessment depends on the research question.

5. Is every PubMed-indexed study reliable?

No. PubMed helps readers discover biomedical literature; indexing is not an endorsement of a study's quality or conclusions. The original paper, methods, publication status and later corrections still need consideration.

6. How are medical statistics verified?

Relevant checks include the original data source, population, date, denominator, units, calculation, confidence interval and whether the statistic is being interpreted correctly. Relative and absolute measures should not be confused.

7. How are medication claims checked?

Medication information should be compared with relevant regulatory records, product information and reliable clinical sources. Ingredient, formulation, strength, route, indication, warnings, interactions and jurisdiction may matter.

8. How are conflicting research findings handled?

Conflicting evidence should be assessed for differences in population, design, methods, outcomes, timing and certainty. Where disagreement remains, the content should describe the uncertainty rather than imply a false consensus.

9. How does Top Medical Health Care Center use AI?

AI tools may assist with limited research or drafting tasks, but their output is not treated as evidence. Material claims, references and calculations require independent verification, and human editorial responsibility remains essential.

10. How can readers report a factual error?

Email [email protected] with the article URL, the specific statement, an explanation and any reliable supporting source. Please do not include unnecessary personal medical information.

11. How frequently are medical articles updated?

There is no single interval that is suitable for every topic. Content may be reconsidered when important evidence, clinical guidance, regulatory information, safety alerts or reader reports warrant review. Displayed update dates should reflect genuine changes.

12. Does this policy guarantee Google rankings?

No. Editorial transparency and accurate information are important publishing goals, but no policy, badge, schema or optimization technique guarantees rankings, indexing or rich results.

13. Are fact-checking labels medical certifications?

No. The classifications described here are editorial terms used to communicate the status of a claim within a defined assessment. They are not government certification, medical approval or independent accreditation.

18. Our editorial commitment

Our responsibility is to communicate health information carefully, identify the evidence behind material claims, distinguish established findings from uncertainty and correct meaningful errors when they are found. We aim to explain not only what a source says, but also what it can—and cannot—establish.

We will not sacrifice factual accuracy, scientific integrity or editorial transparency for search visibility, visual presentation, commercial interests or automated content production. We will not claim accreditation, medical authority, reviewer involvement or completed verification without evidence to support that claim.

Readers are encouraged to review our wider publishing information, including the About Us and Editorial Policy pages, and to contact us when they identify a concern.

Policy owner: Top Medical Health Care Center

Contact: [email protected]

Effective / last policy review date: November 7, 2026

This policy may be revised when editorial procedures, relevant evidence standards or applicable publishing requirements change. Please consult the live page for the current version.