Editorial Standards

How We Build Our Content

Our site has two categories of content. Clinical content — pages that discuss specific treatment decisions, medications, or procedures — is written by a medical writer and reviewed by a board-certified physician on our Medical Advisory Board before publication. Educational reference content — including our glossary, our condition overviews, and our patient navigation guides — is written by a medical writer from primary medical literature with full citations, and follows our quarterly editorial review process. Both categories are clearly labeled at the top of each page.

Every clinical page on NeuropathyAnswers.org is written by a medical writer working from primary medical literature and reviewed by a board-certified physician before publication. We tell you who wrote each piece, who reviewed it, when it was last reviewed, and what sources we relied on. This is not a marketing site dressed in clinical language. It is a patient-education resource built to the editorial standards a credible medical journal would recognize.

What primary sources mean

For every clinical claim on the site, we cite the original research, the clinical guideline, or the regulatory document the claim comes from. When we describe what gabapentin does, we link to the Cochrane review. When we describe Medicare coverage of a procedure, we link to the actual Local Coverage Determination. When we describe what a particular trial showed, we name the trial, the journal, the year, and the patient population. We do not cite Healthline, WebMD, or other aggregator sites; we cite the same sources those sites should be citing. Every primary citation includes a PMID, DOI, or government-document identifier so you can verify the source yourself.

How we keep content current

Every clinical page is reviewed by its assigned medical reviewer no less than once per quarter. Pages on rapidly evolving topics, including new treatments and Medicare coverage, are reviewed more frequently. The "Last reviewed" date at the top of each page reflects the most recent physician review, not the most recent edit. If you see a page that has not been reviewed in more than 120 days, please contact us; we treat that as a publication defect.

What we do not publish

We do not publish patient testimonials, outcome claims attributed to individuals, or first-person stories of treatment success or failure. The reasons are clinical and ethical: individual experiences are not evidence, and presenting them as such would misrepresent the actual research. We do not publish advertising, sponsored content, or affiliate links. We do not accept payment from device manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies, or any commercial entity to feature, recommend, or describe their products favorably. When we describe a specific drug or device, we do so because the clinical literature requires us to, and we treat all relevant options with the same editorial discipline.

When we are wrong

We will be wrong sometimes. Medicine changes, our reviewers miss things, and language we thought was clear turns out to mislead some readers. When we publish a correction, we mark the corrected page with the date and description of the correction at the bottom, preserve the original text in our internal records, and notify newsletter subscribers if the correction is material. You can submit a correction request at any time through our contact form, and a member of the editorial team responds within five business days.

Who writes our content

Each page displays the name of the medical writer who authored it and the physician who reviewed it. Our medical writers hold credentials in health communication, medical writing, or clinical disciplines. Our physician reviewers are members of our Medical Advisory Board, all of whom are board-certified in their fields of practice and disclose their financial relationships publicly. You can read more about our Board on the Medical Advisory Board page.