Editorial standards and corrections

Issued 31 October 2026. Review alongside future editorial or privacy changes.

The aim is to provide accessible, clinically coherent medical learning material for undergraduate and postgraduate education. The existing pages are publication drafts, not a formally accredited or independently peer-reviewed clinical guideline.

Contribution and version control

Editors and subeditors have named accounts. Every saved revision should include a meaningful summary of what was changed. The wiki records authorship and retains previous versions so corrections can be compared or restored by the owner. Contributions are published to the website as saved; app releases require a separate action by the owner.

Evidence and review

Contributors should favour current UK guidelines (NICE, MHRA, BNF/BNFC, national professional bodies and relevant NHS/local guidance), original research and high-quality systematic reviews. Indicate when recommendations are controversial or differ across jurisdictions. Supply links or references for high-stakes claims, with an access or review date where relevant.

Each chapter should display the date of its latest clinical review and a responsible reviewer after such a review has genuinely occurred. Editing a typographical error should not reset a clinical review date. High-risk subjects such as medicines, anticoagulation, resuscitation, sepsis and obstetric emergencies warrant prioritised review and rapid correction of known errors.

Clinical and medico-legal checks before publication

• Separate general teaching points from instructions for patient care.
• Check drug names, doses, units, renal adjustments, contraindications and monitoring with primary references.
• Check patient confidentiality, image licences, consent, anonymisation and intellectual property rights.
• Identify conflicts of interest and distinguish evidence from expert opinion.
• Correct outdated or unsafe text promptly and record the reason in revision history.

Feedback and suspected errors

Users should contact the owner by the published website contact route, clearly naming the chapter and the suspected problem. Until verified, a reported high-risk error should be treated as potentially unsafe. The main editor can restore the previous revision and issue a new offline app package after a correction.

Professional context: GMC Good medical practice and NHS website content policy.