Editorial standards
Who checks what we publish, and how
A qualified doctor reviews every page on this site. We check factual claims and medical details against drug labels and published studies. Commercial interests never shape what we write.
Our medical reviewer
[Reviewer photo]
Dr [PLACEHOLDER]
[PLACEHOLDER: e.g. MBBS, FCPS (Dermatology), Specialist Clinician]
Registration [PLACEHOLDER council] registration no. [PLACEHOLDER]
Register Check Verify on the register →
Current Post [PLACEHOLDER: Consultant Dermatologist / Hospital Appointment]
“[PLACEHOLDER: two or three sentences from the medical reviewer on why independent scrutiny matters, the prevalence of misinformation regarding dermatological compounds, and their commitment to clinical precision.]”
Disclosure: Paid for independent review work. Has no financial link to the manufacturer [PLACEHOLDER: confirm].
How a page is written and checked
Every article and drug comparison follows a clear five-step review process before we publish it.
- Primary Source Compilation. Written from primary sources: prescribing information, regulator documents, peer-reviewed clinical studies.
- Data Provenance & Verification. Every number is linked to its source; anything we cannot independently verify is marked as not available.
- Dermatologist Sign-off. A dermatologist reviews every draft before publication to confirm medical details and safety warnings.
- Routine Recertification Cycle. Re-checked at least every [PLACEHOLDER] months, or sooner when the official label or statutory rules change.
- Public Attribution & Audit Trail. Each page explicitly shows its reviewing clinician and last review date.
What we will not do
What we will not do
To preserve absolute clinical utility and resist commercial influence, we enforce the following restrictions across our medical writing without exception:
- ✕ Claim a cure — Chronic vitiligo & eczema management is symptomatic
- ✕ Publish testimonials, ratings or before-and-after photos — Anecdotes mislead clinical expectations
- ✕ Call the generic FDA-approved — Precise legal registration must be maintained
- ✕ Use the original product’s results as if they were the generic’s — Bioequivalence and trial boundaries are kept explicit
Corrections
If you spot an error, write to [PLACEHOLDER email]. We fix mistakes quickly and note every update at the bottom of the page.
Change log
Formal ledger of retrospective adjustments, factual rectifications, and source updates applied across this site.
| Date | Page | Change Description |
|---|---|---|
| [PLACEHOLDER date] | [PLACEHOLDER page] | [PLACEHOLDER change description: e.g. Updated Bangladesh pricing data; corrected DGDA reference notation in clinical overview.] |
| [PLACEHOLDER date] | [PLACEHOLDER page] | [PLACEHOLDER change description: e.g. Clarified 1.5% topical formulation safety warnings in accordance with newly revised prescribing guide.] |
| [PLACEHOLDER date] | [PLACEHOLDER page] | [PLACEHOLDER change description: e.g. Annual review completed by Dr [PLACEHOLDER]; references verified against published phase-III trial data.] |
Spot a discrepancy or have a clinical question?
Our editorial desk reviews every reader question, report, and doctor observation.
Editorial Independence
Editorial Independence: Reviewers receive fixed professional fees independent of patient volume, prescription status, or pharmaceutical sales. Scientific appraisal is kept separate from sales. [PLACEHOLDER: confirm this matches your arrangement with the reviewer]
Notice to Healthcare ProfessionalsDoctors and medical researchers wishing to question a citation or submit newer trial findings may email our team directly at [PLACEHOLDER email].