Editorial Policy

Last updated: January 2026

HealthReview publishes plain-language explanations of blood tests, medical conditions, symptoms and medicines. This page explains exactly how that content is produced, what it is based on, and how we handle corrections: so you can judge for yourself how much weight to give it.

Who writes this site

HealthReview is an independent health information website. Content is researched and written by our editorial team from published medical sources.

Medication guides and blood-test pages are reviewed by Suman Konda, PharmD, a clinical pharmacist registered with the Telangana State Pharmacy Council and the operator of this site. That review covers the areas where a pharmacist's training is directly relevant: medicines, dosing, side effects, interactions, monitoring, and interpretation of laboratory reference ranges.

Condition and symptom pages are not individually clinician-reviewed. They are researched and written by the editorial team from published sources. We state this rather than implying broader clinical oversight than actually exists.

In all cases, we are not a medical practice and we are not acting as your clinician. A pharmacist's review improves accuracy; it does not make this site a substitute for your own doctor, which is why every page carries a disclaimer and directs you back to them for interpretation of your results.

What our content is based on

We build pages from sources of the following kinds, in roughly this order of preference:

Reference ranges and why they vary

Laboratory reference ranges differ between laboratories, analysers, populations and units of measurement. The ranges we publish are typical adult values intended for orientation only. Always compare your result against the reference range printed on your own laboratory report, not against ours.

How we handle uncertainty

Medicine frequently lacks a single settled answer. Where evidence is genuinely contested or evolving, we try to say so rather than presenting false certainty. As one example, our vitamin D page reflects the 2024 Endocrine Society guideline position that routine vitamin D screening is not recommended for the healthy general population, even though this runs against a widespread assumption that everyone should be tested.

What we deliberately do not do

Advertising and editorial independence

This site is free to read and is funded by advertising. Advertisements are served by third-party networks and are clearly distinguishable from editorial content. Advertisers have no input into what we publish, no advance sight of content, and no ability to alter or remove it. We do not accept payment for favourable coverage of any product, test or treatment.

Corrections

We take accuracy seriously and we would rather be corrected than be wrong. If you believe something on this site is inaccurate or out of date, please email kondasuman23496@gmail.com with the page URL and, if possible, a source. Reports affecting medical accuracy are prioritised and reviewed within 24–48 hours, and substantive corrections are applied to the page.

Review and updating

Pages are reviewed and updated as guidelines change, as new evidence emerges, or when a reader reports a problem. Because guidance evolves, no health page should be treated as permanently current: if a decision matters to you, confirm it with a clinician.