Medical content changes. Safety warnings occur, medical associations publish updated recommendations, research that was thought to have positive results in the past has since proven otherwise. As such, FreeMedicalJournals.com (FMJ) views publishing of a Medical Guide as the start of its practical life cycle rather than the completion of the editorial process.
What Triggers a Review
Reviews for guides are triggered by:
- Changes in clinical guidelines or regulatory recommendations.
- Regulatory notices issued regarding the safety of a drug or device.
- Important evidence surfaces which impacts the “net benefit” vs. “net harm” analysis.
- A reader, clinician, author, or reviewer identifies a legitimate concern based on credible evidence.
- The underlying products/services/diagnostic definitions/public health issue(s) being discussed change.
- Routine editorial reviews identify dead links or outdated language.
Timing will depend upon the potential risk. For example, if the updates involve emergency signs/symptoms, contraindications, pregnancy, drugs, children etc., they would receive priority over a minor presentation update.
Update Process
Upon reviewing the impact of changes to existing claims within the guide, the Editor will cross-check them against currently available authoritative resources and assess whether other areas of the guide require revisions. In some cases this may only require updating a couple of sentences, adding a precautionary sentence, replacing references, conducting a complete expert review and/or rewriting most of the content on the page.
Date Shown as Modified
The date shown as modified should represent a meaningful change to content; not merely cosmetic. If material changes were made to the medical meaning/conclusion of a portion of the guide, then it should contain a dated correction/update note which indicates to readers what has been altered.
Review Dates and Older Content
As mentioned above, a displayed review date represents an entry point into a completed review process; not a commitment by FMJ to maintain consistent evidence prior to subsequent review date. Readers should always seek advice from their clinician/public health agency/medicines regulatory body.
Archival Status
If FMJ cannot reasonably get an older guide brought up to satisfactory standards in short order, it may display a warning message to users or remove it from regular access. While historical significance is valuable; it does not justify providing potentially dangerous information to consumers without proper context.
Reporting Outdated Guides
To report an outdated guide please send us an e-mail at contact@freemedicaljournals.com along with the web-page URL, the outdated claim you feel exists, and either a link/reference to newer data supporting your position. All complaints regarding editorial concerns are addressed through our corrections and editorial complaint policy.