Editorial policy
How we research, write, fact-check, and correct. This document is the standard our editorial team is held to and the standard we ask readers to hold us to.
Sourcing
Every clinical claim links to a primary source: a published guideline (ACEP, NICE, USPSTF, etc.), a peer-reviewed study, a regulatory label, or the tool vendor's own technical documentation. Where a primary source is paywalled, we cite it and note the access route.
Tool testing
Tools are tested against our published methodology. Each scoring round runs the same 50-question benchmark, in the same order, on the same residential connection, within a 14-day window. Results are logged before publication.
Fact-checking
Every article is fact-checked by at least one editorial team member who did not write it. Numerical claims (user counts, prices, paper counts, partnership claims) are verified against the vendor's own current public statements within seven days of publication.
Corrections
If we get a fact wrong, we fix it as quickly as possible and add a correction note to the affected article. Material corrections (anything that changes a recommendation or a score) are dated and explained at the bottom of the article. Email editorial@theaugmentedclinician.com with corrections.
AI use in editorial workflow
We use AI tools for drafting, summarization, and editing assistance. Every published claim, ranking, and recommendation is reviewed and approved by a human editor on the team before publication. We do not publish AI-generated content unsupervised.
Affiliate and commercial relationships
See our disclosures page for current relationships. We do not accept payment in exchange for coverage, ranking position, or rating. Where any team member has a relationship with a vendor, they are recused from scoring or writing about that tool.