How HeliosCheck.com writes and checks its health content
Health information is only worth reading if you can see where it came from and who stands behind it. This page sets out who writes ours, who signs it off, which evidence we prefer, how often we re-read it, and what happens when we get something wrong.
- 01
Written by people who treat this
Clinical pages are drafted or shaped by doctors on the specialist register in obstetrics and gynecology, not by a content agency working from a keyword list.
- 02
Guidelines before single studies
We start from national guidance and systematic reviews, and treat one promising trial as a reason to watch a question rather than to rewrite an answer.
- 03
Dated, sourced, re-read
Every clinical page carries a review date, a named reviewer and links to the guidance it rests on. Nothing sits unread for longer than twelve months.
- 04
Nobody pays to appear here
No advertising, no sponsored clinical content, no affiliate links, no paid product mentions. There is no commercial route onto a HeliosCheck.com page.
Who actually writes it, and whose name is on it
Clinical content on HeliosCheck.com is produced by the same consultants who run our consultations: Dr A. Whitfield (endometriosis and pelvic pain), Dr N. Adeyemi (fertility and early pregnancy) and Dr S. Moreau (perimenopause and menopause medicine). Each holds specialist registration in obstetrics and gynecology [GMC number to be added for each clinician before launch].
A medical writer may help with structure, clarity and reading level, and where that happens the clinician who owns the page remains responsible for every clinical statement in it. What we do not do is commission health pages from people who have never taken a history and then attach a doctor’s photograph to the result. If a page carries a name, that person read it line by line and was willing to be asked about it.
Pages that are not clinical — pricing, booking, policies — are written by the practice and reviewed for accuracy rather than for medical content. You can see the clinicians and the way the practice is run on our about page, and how an appointment is delivered on how it works.
What we treat as strong evidence, in order
Most misleading health writing is not invented. It is a single study, reported accurately, given far more weight than it can carry. We work down this list and say where on it a claim sits.
-
National and specialty guidelines
NICE, RCOG, ACOG, WHO and CDC guidance are our default starting point. They are produced by panels who have already read the literature, weighed it against harm and cost, and published their reasoning. Where two guidelines differ, we say which one we have followed and why.
-
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses
Cochrane reviews and other well-conducted systematic reviews come next, because they describe the weight of the evidence rather than the result of one attempt at it. We look at how the review rates its own certainty, not only at its headline conclusion.
-
Large, well-designed primary trials
Randomised controlled trials with meaningful sample sizes and clinically relevant endpoints. We read what was actually measured: a trial that improves a blood marker has not yet shown that it improves a symptom, a pregnancy rate or a life.
-
Observational and registry data
Cohort and registry studies carry real weight in women’s health, where randomising people is often impossible or unethical — pregnancy exposures, long-term contraceptive safety, rare surgical outcomes. We use them, and we name their limits.
-
Expert opinion, clearly labelled
Sometimes the honest answer is that the evidence runs out and experienced clinicians still have to decide something. When we are relying on specialist consensus or our own practice, we say so in the sentence itself rather than dressing it as proof.
Two sources do most of the work here: NICE guidance, which sets out what the UK health service recommends and why, and Cochrane, whose systematic reviews assess the whole body of trial evidence on a question rather than the most recent instalment of it.
From first outline to a signed-off page
Four stages, in this order, for every clinical page. Nothing is published because a deadline arrived or because a competitor ranks for the term.
- 01
Scope and outline
A clinician sets the questions a page must answer — usually the ones patients actually ask in consultations — and identifies the guidance the answer has to be consistent with before a word is written.
- 02
Draft and source
The draft is written against those sources, with each clinical claim traceable to a named guideline, review or trial. Anything that cannot be traced is either cut or rewritten as the uncertainty it really is.
- 03
Clinical review and sign-off
A consultant who was not the drafter reads the page for accuracy, safety and omission — particularly whether red-flag symptoms are stated plainly enough. Their name and the date go on the page.
- 04
Plain-language and access check
A final pass tests whether the page reads clearly at speed and on a phone: heading structure, jargon, alt text, reading level, and whether the urgent advice is visible without scrolling past three paragraphs of context.
How we cite, and why the date matters
Health advice has a shelf life. Guidance on hormone therapy, cervical screening intervals and early pregnancy management has all shifted within the working lives of the clinicians writing here, and a page that does not tell you when it was last checked is asking you to trust it blind.
- Each clinical page names the guideline or review it follows and links to the source, not to a summary of it
- Links point to the issuing body — NICE, RCOG, ACOG, WHO, CDC, NHS or Cochrane — rather than to news coverage
- Reviewed and updated dates are shown on the page, not hidden in a sitemap
- Where guidance differs between countries, we say which country’s guidance we are describing
- Where a number is quoted, we quote it as the source states it, with its population and its limits
- We do not invent statistics, and we do not round a rough clinical impression into a figure
Every clinical page is re-read on a fixed twelve-month cycle whether or not anything appears to have changed, and out of cycle whenever a body we cite updates its guidance or issues a safety alert. Re-reading a page sometimes changes nothing except the date — that is a legitimate outcome, and we record it as one.
What we do when the evidence disagrees with itself
We say the evidence is unsettled
Large parts of women’s health have been under-researched for decades, and the honest summary of some questions is that nobody yet knows. We write that sentence rather than picking the more quotable of two answers.
We name the disagreement
Where reputable bodies differ — on screening intervals, on thresholds for investigation, on how long to try before referral — we describe both positions, say which we follow in practice, and explain what would change our view.
We describe risk in real terms
Relative risk makes a headline; absolute risk helps you decide. Where we can, we give the underlying rate as well as the change, because “doubles the risk” means something very different at one in ten thousand than at one in ten.
Corrections are published, not quietly deleted
When a factual or clinical error is confirmed, we correct the page and add a dated note saying what changed. Substantive corrections stay visible. Typographical fixes and rewording for clarity do not carry a note, because a correction log that records comma changes hides the corrections that matter.
Reports are triaged the same working day and assessed by a clinician who was not the page’s author. If a claim is potentially unsafe, the page is amended or taken down while it is checked rather than left up pending a decision. We aim to respond to the person who reported it within five working days, whether or not we ultimately agree.
To report an error, email hello@helioschecks.com with the page address and what you believe is wrong, or use the contact page and choose the editorial route. Clinicians, researchers and patients all use it, and a source we can check is more useful to us than a strongly worded opinion.
- The full address of the page and, if you can, the sentence in question
- What you believe is inaccurate, out of date or open to being misread
- Any source you are relying on — a guideline, review or trial we can open
- Whether you are writing as a patient, a clinician or a researcher
- How you would like us to reply, and whether you want to be credited
Complaints about care rather than content follow a different route, set out in our terms of service.
Nothing on HeliosCheck.com is for sale
Our only revenue is the fee patients pay for consultations. That keeps the incentives simple, and it is the reason the two lists below can be this short and this absolute.
- Accept payment, gifts or hospitality in exchange for coverage of a treatment, product or clinic
- Publish content written or edited by a commercial sponsor, in any form, labelled or otherwise
- Carry display advertising, affiliate links, or referral commissions on any page
- Let a supplier, laboratory or manufacturer review a page before it is published
- Recommend a test or treatment we profit from without saying plainly that we provide it
- That HeliosCheck.com is a paid consultation service, on any page that recommends specialist assessment
- Any consultancy, research funding, advisory role or shareholding held by a named reviewer, on that reviewer’s profile
- Any equipment, laboratory or software partnership that could reasonably look like an interest
- Any page that was corrected after publication, with the date and the substance of the change
We are a commercial practice and we say so on every page that suggests a specialist assessment: the recommendation to be seen is clinical, and the fact that we would be the ones seeing you is a commercial interest you are entitled to weigh. Pricing is published in full on services, and what we hold about you is set out in our privacy policy.
Where AI tools are used — and where they are not
We think readers deserve a direct answer rather than a carefully worded absence of one. AI tools may be used at HeliosCheck.com to help structure an outline, tighten wording, check reading level, draft alt text and spot inconsistencies between pages. They are useful for exactly that kind of work.
They are not used to decide clinical content, to select which evidence a page rests on, or to generate medical claims that then go live. No page is published on the strength of a tool’s output. A named consultant reads every clinical page in full against the source guidance before publication, signs it off, and is accountable for it afterwards — the same accountability they carry for advice given in a consultation.
AI is never given access to patient records, consultation notes or anything you send us. The tools involved in producing this website sit entirely outside the clinical systems described in our privacy policy. If that position changes, this page changes first, and the date at the top will tell you when.
Citing a body does not mean it endorses HeliosCheck.com. It means we have read its guidance and are telling you where our answer came from, so you can read it too.
Editorial questions we are asked
Who is accountable for what HeliosCheck.com publishes?
A named consultant reviewer signs off every clinical page, and our clinical lead, Dr A. Whitfield, is accountable for the editorial standard across the site as a whole. Accountability sits with a person, not with a department or a byline like “the HeliosCheck team”.
How often do you update clinical pages?
Every clinical page is re-read on a fixed twelve-month cycle, and sooner whenever a body we cite changes its guidance, a safety alert is issued, or a reader tells us something looks wrong. The page shows when it was last reviewed so you can judge its age for yourself.
Do you use AI to write health content?
AI tools may assist with drafting, structuring and language editing. They never decide clinical content, and no page reaches the site on their say-so: a named clinician reviews every published page and is accountable for it.
More about appointments, fees and follow-up on our FAQ page, and the conditions we write about most in the conditions library.
Read the pages. Then ask a specialist about you.
Our writing is built to make your questions sharper. Answering them for your body takes 30 to 45 minutes with a HeliosCheck.com consultant gynecologist, a written plan afterwards, and 14 days to ask what it meant.
Limits of online information: medical disclaimer. Access needs and adjustments: accessibility statement.
