Key clinical summary
The editorial model prioritises peripheral musculoskeletal relevance, named responsibility, patient clarity and balanced use of evidence.
- Content is written and reviewed to support informed decisions, not to replace assessment.
- Priority is given to guidance, systematic reviews, major clinical practice guidelines and higher-quality studies.
- Pages are updated when evidence, scope or clarity materially changes.
This editorial policy explains how pages are planned, written, reviewed and updated across the website. Its purpose is simple: to make the standards behind the content visible rather than implied.
Editorial aims
Pages are written to answer patient and clinician questions clearly while preserving nuance. The website deliberately avoids miracle-cure language, procedure-first marketing and unsupported certainty. Where evidence is mixed, that uncertainty should remain visible.
Source hierarchy
Priority is given to NICE guidance, major specialty guidelines, systematic reviews, meta-analyses and clinically relevant peer-reviewed studies. Lower-level evidence may still be used when higher-level literature is limited, but it should not be presented as stronger than it is.
Scope control
The platform is intentionally limited to peripheral musculoskeletal conditions, diagnostic ultrasound and peripheral injections. Restricting scope is part of quality control; it reduces the risk of drifting into topics that are not central to the live service.
Review and revision
Pillar pages are revised on a rolling basis. Revisions may follow new guidance, better evidence, meaningful changes in clinical understanding, or editorial opportunities to improve patient comprehension and internal consistency.
Evidence strength summary
Transparent editorial governance is now a core trust signal for medical websites. It helps both readers and search systems understand that pages are produced within a defined quality process rather than assembled ad hoc.
How the evidence is used
Page-specific FAQs
Why publish an editorial policy?
Because trust is stronger when readers can see how content is produced and reviewed.
Does every page carry the same weight of evidence?
No. Pages reflect the evidence available for that topic and should say so honestly.
Why is the site limited to peripheral MSK topics?
Because the website should match the actual clinical expertise and service scope.
How often are pages reviewed?
On a rolling basis and whenever major guidance or clarity issues arise.
Are references added just for SEO?
No. They are included to support transparent reasoning and evidence signposting.
Harvard references
- Lin, I. et al. (2020) What does best practice care for musculoskeletal pain look like? Ten principles from a systematic review. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 54(2), pp.79–86.
- National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (2022) Osteoarthritis in over 16s: diagnosis and management. NICE guideline NG226.
- Littlewood, C. et al. (2019) Rotator cuff disorders: a synthesis of systematic reviews. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 53(20), pp.1244–1250.
- Hopkins, C. et al. (2024) Plantar heel pain and fasciopathy revision clinical practice guideline. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy, 54(1), CPG1–CPG58.
- Martin, R.L. et al. (2024) Achilles pain, stiffness and muscle power deficits: midportion Achilles tendinopathy revision. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy, 54(12), CPG1–CPG32.