Useful guidance, with its sources and limits clear.

Help with the next conversation, not a diagnosis

The MedReview journal is for people who want to understand the questions surrounding their medicines, monitoring or a planned review. Articles explain context, suggest information to bring and offer questions to discuss with a GP, prescriber or pharmacist.

They do not assess an individual’s health record, interpret a personal test result, recommend a dose or authorise a change to treatment. An article cannot establish whether a medicine is appropriate for you. Advice from your own care team and any urgent instructions they have given remain important.

Use sources that readers can check

Clinical statements in the guides are grounded in relevant primary guidance, including the NHS, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), the Specialist Pharmacy Service (SPS) and the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). Each article links to its sources and further reading.

We use those sources for what they actually address. A recommendation for a particular medicine, patient group or clinical setting is not presented as a rule for everyone. Where a decision depends on individual circumstances, the guide directs the reader to the professional responsible for their care.

Practical preparation examples are written to help organise a conversation. They are not quotations from a guideline, evidence that someone has a condition or a substitute for a clinical assessment. We do not invent research findings, search statistics, patient stories or endorsements to make an article more persuasive.

Be clear about who wrote or reviewed something

The current guides are attributed to MedReview. A named clinician is not presented as an author or reviewer unless that person has actually contributed in that role and agreed to the attribution. An organisational byline alone is not a claim of independent clinical review.

Publication and last-updated dates describe the editorial history of an article. They do not mean that every reader’s circumstances have been checked, that an individual pharmacist has signed it off or that its sources were published on that date. The source links allow you to inspect the underlying guidance and its own dates.

The names, qualifications and registration details on a personalised clinical report identify the pharmacist responsible for that report. They should not be inferred from a general website article.

Keep assistance with drafting separate from authority

AI-assisted drafting is used for some website content. The basis for clinical statements is the cited source material, not an AI response. AI output can be incomplete or wrong, so it should not be treated as evidence or a substitute for professional judgement.

The patient service also uses technology to help organise information and prepare draft letters. That is a separate workflow with pharmacist checking before release. The privacy notice describes the providers and processing used for patient information; this editorial policy does not replace it.

No public article is intended as an automated prescribing instruction. We do not ask readers to upload their clinical records into a public article or send them with a routine editorial query.

Make the commercial context visible

MedReview publishes these guides and also provides a paid private medicines-review service. Articles may link to that service where it is relevant. The existence of a link does not mean that a paid review, a private blood test or a more expensive package is necessary for the reader.

Guides explain the limits of the service and recognise that people can ask their usual GP practice or pharmacist about NHS support. We do not imply that MedReview provides blood testing, genetic testing, diagnosis or prescribing when it does not. Package details and prices belong on the review comparison page, so readers can inspect the actual offer.

Illustrative photography and fictional report examples are identified as such. They are not testimonials, real patient records or evidence of clinical outcomes.

Tell us when something needs checking

Email hello@medreview.co.uk with “Article correction”, the page address, the statement you are concerned about and a relevant source if you have one. Keep the message about the published content; do not include a personal medicines list or test results.

Reported factual issues and changes to source guidance are reasons to revisit an article. A meaningful revision should be reflected in the article’s update date. An update is not a guarantee that no uncertainty remains; use the sources and speak to your care team when applying information to your own situation.

For a concern about an individual review or service experience, follow the complaints procedure. For urgent health questions, seek appropriate care rather than waiting for an editorial response.