UCLH Health is an independent health-information site. Our aim is to explain health topics in plain, accurate language — and to be transparent about how we do it. This page sets out how our content is made, and is honest about what we do and don't yet claim about it.

How do we produce our content?

Every article is written and edited by the UCLH Health editorial team — health writers and editors — in plain language, and checked against reputable medical sources before it's published.

In practice that means we research each topic against current, authoritative guidance, then write it up to be clear and genuinely useful: a direct answer to the question first, followed by the detail that supports it. We aim for accuracy and restraint over hype, and we try not to overstate what the evidence shows. Our content is general information to help you understand a topic — it is not personal medical advice.

What sources do we use?

We rely on recognised, authoritative health sources: the NHS, the World Health Organization (WHO), the US National Institutes of Health (NIH), Cochrane reviews, peer-reviewed research, and established clinical bodies such as Cleveland Clinic.

Wherever possible we prefer official guidance and primary research over secondary write-ups. We cite the sources we used at the foot of each article, with links, so you can check the original material yourself and see exactly what a statement is based on.

How do we handle accuracy and updates?

Health guidance changes over time, so we date every article and review our content periodically, refreshing it when the evidence or official advice moves on.

Each article shows when it was first published and when it was last updated, so you can judge how current it is. If we find an error — or a reader points one out — we correct it and update the page rather than quietly leaving it. Keeping content accurate and current matters more to us than publishing as much as possible.

Is our content medically reviewed?

Not yet individually. Our articles are written and edited by our editorial team and checked against reputable medical sources, but they are not currently reviewed by a named clinician — so you won't see a "medically reviewed by" line on them.

We'd rather be straightforward about that than imply a level of review that isn't happening. We are working to bring qualified medical professionals into our process. When an article has been reviewed by a named clinician, it will clearly show that reviewer's name and credentials; until it does, you can take it that the article has been editorially produced but not clinician-reviewed. Either way, our content is general information and is not a substitute for advice from a qualified healthcare professional who knows your individual situation.

Where can I read more about your standards?

Our full approach to researching, sourcing, reviewing, and updating what we publish is set out in our editorial policy.

This article is for general information only and is not a substitute for professional medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare provider about your individual situation.