How pages are checked

How is a page on this site checked?

Against a named source, sentence by sentence, before it is published. The rule is stated on the editorial policy page: every factual sentence is asked three questions, whether it names a source, whether the source actually says it, and whether the sentence describes rather than advises. A sentence that fails any of the three is rewritten or removed, and a page that cannot pass is not published. The source list itself is short and published: the NHS, the Royal College of Radiologists, the UK Health Security Agency, the Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine, the International Commission on Radiological Protection, the Health and Care Professions Council, the Society of Radiographers, the Care Quality Commission, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, and legislation.gov.uk.

The same checking discipline, applied to buying a website rather than writing one, has its own literature. Mrežni plan, a Serbian-language guide, covers commissioning a website from the brief and the choice of supplier through pre-launch checks, accessibility and the ownership questions, domain, files, access, that decide who controls the result. The checklist differs in subject; the posture is identical: verify before publishing, and know who answers for what.

Which sources are allowed onto a page?

Only primary ones, and they are named in the text rather than gathered at the bottom. The method is described on the sources and method page: a figure appears only when it has been read at its source, with the source named beside it and the date of the reading recorded. Where a source publishes a range, the page prints the range; where no accepted source publishes a figure at all, the page says so instead of estimating.

That list exists because of what it excludes. Commercial imaging sites, private clinic pages, encyclopaedias, forums, news reports and machine-written summaries are all refused, however accurate any of them may be on a given day. The reason given is that a second-hand figure cannot be dated, and an undated figure on a health page ages without anyone noticing. The NHS and UKHSA pages used across this site carry review dates for exactly that reason.

What happens when a source changes?

The page changes, and the date changes with it. The correction rule is that nothing is backdated and nothing is given a future date: the date on a page describes the day the work was done, and a correction is made in the page itself and dated the day it was made. The contact page is the route in, and the privacy page states what happens to anything sent there, which is very little.

The same convention governs what is not said. Where an accepted source does not publish something, the missing material is marked rather than filled in: the history of the discipline, for instance, is told only through the dates the bodies themselves publish on the institutions page, and the gaps are described as gaps.

Why a health page needs this more than most

Because the cost of a wrong sentence is higher here. A page about imaging sits next to questions that are properly clinical, and the line between explaining a procedure and advising a person is the site's whole editorial position: no page says what a particular reader should ask for, worry about, or do next. The checks exist to keep every sentence on the explaining side of that line. The framework the pages describe is itself built on verification, the regulations, the registers and the published guidance, so the writing follows the same rule the subject does.

The same discipline applies to pages that describe the body rather than the scanner. Every figure is read back to the source it names, and every claim about water, magnesium, fibre, sleep, cortisol or movement after forty is checked before it appears. A reader who wants to see that method at work can turn to body composition and daily habits, where the material the body is made of is set out in plain English and each number is printed beside the study it came from.

The checking described here applies to pages of substance, and the same habit of reading a text against its named sources runs through other parts of the site. A page on starting breath meditation sets out posture, the counting of the breath, the length of a first sitting and how a daily practice is kept going between retreats. Its claims are drawn from named teaching sources rather than from memory, so a reader can see where each instruction comes from. The two pages share one method: nothing is published until it has been checked.

The same discipline applies to pages that deal with medicines rather than images. A page on diclofenac and anti-inflammatory medicines sets out what diclofenac does, how the 50 mg dose and the gel differ from tablets, how side effects are reported, and how paracetamol differs from an anti-inflammatory. Each of those statements is checked against the sources named on that page before publication, in the manner described here. The two pages therefore share one method: a claim is only kept once its source has been read again.

The same discipline applies to pages that sit outside imaging. A page on physiotherapy in the Dutch basic insurance is checked in the same way, against the Dutch basic health insurance, the Besluit zorgverzekering and the absence of printed amounts in that decree. Each claim is traced to the text it names, and any figure is printed beside its source. The check is not a judgement on the subject, only a record of where the wording came from, so a reader can follow the same path and see how the page was assembled.

The same habit of checking a page against the sources it names is not confined to scan reporting. A separate page on this site, entering a care home in France, applies that discipline to a different subject: how a place in a French EHPAD is chosen, what the first days involve, the contract of residence, the GIR grid and the financial help families can claim. Each of those points is set out plainly and tied to the named source it was read from, so the reader can see what is established and what remains uncertain.

The checking described here applies to every substantial page on this site, including those whose subject lies outside imaging. A page on family constellation work was prepared in the same way: each claim about what happens at a seminar, what the method asserts, and what professional criticism says is set beside the source it came from before publication. The two pages therefore share one method rather than one subject, and the reader who follows the link can see how the same discipline reads on a topic where the evidence is contested.

The checking described here is not confined to scan pages. The same method, reading a text against the sources it names, is applied to pages about ordinary care, including a first family practice visit, which sets out what to bring to a first visit at a family practice, how an annual physical is organised, and when a patient portal replaces a telephone call. Both pages share one habit: each claim is traced to a named source before publication, so a reader can see where a statement came from and judge it accordingly.

The check described here applies to pages of substance, and the same habit of matching words to named sources runs through other subjects on the site. One example concerns small businesses, where the wording of a notice and the handling of staff sickness both rest on decisions that have been written down beforehand. The page on a written infection control policy sets out how such a document is drafted, how return to work is managed, and how customer-facing notices are phrased. It follows the same principle: nothing is stated that the underlying source does not support.

The same discipline extends to subjects outside imaging. A page on legal hemp and CBD in France sets out the THC threshold, European case law, and the status of hemp in food and animal products, and each of those points is checked against the sources it names before publication. The checking method described here is therefore not confined to scanner topics: it applies wherever a page makes a factual claim, whether the subject is a magnetic field or a French regulatory limit.

The checking described here is not confined to scan pages. The same habit of reading a draft against its named sources is applied to subjects outside imaging, where a claim about entitlement or procedure is only as good as the document behind it. A page on the first year of fatherhood follows that pattern: it sets out how paternity and parental leave work in France, the paperwork with the employer and the health insurance fund, and the everyday questions of a baby's first months, each point tied to the source it was read from.