Clear reporting, visible judgement

How we label our work

Briefing pieces summarise the most important developments. Analysis pieces explain context and consequences. Guides help readers navigate practical questions. Reviews assess products or services against stated criteria.

Opinion and interpretation should be recognisable as such. Headlines and standfirsts should reflect the evidence in the article, not overstate it.

Sources and verification

We prefer legislation, regulator publications, clinical guidance, peer-reviewed research and direct statements. Where a primary source is unavailable, we look for independent corroboration and make uncertainty clear.

Patient experience can illuminate how a system works in practice, but an individual account is not clinical evidence. Anonymous testimony is identified as anonymous and used only when protecting the contributor is justified.

Medical claims

We do not diagnose, recommend treatment or promise outcomes. We distinguish early research from established evidence and encourage readers to discuss individual decisions with an appropriately qualified clinician.

Corrections and edit dates

Articles show a publication date and, after a substantive desk edit, an edited date. An edit date records work on structure, clarity and internal consistency; it is not a claim that every linked source was published or independently re-audited on that date.

If an error materially changes the meaning of a story, we correct the article and make the nature of the change clear. Smaller spelling, formatting and style corrections may be made without a note.

Commercial independence

Affiliate relationships do not determine our conclusions, rankings or coverage. Paid work must be labelled before a reader engages with it. Read our sponsorship and commercial-content policy.

Raise a concern

Send corrections, source material or questions about our standards to contact@apcollective.ltd. Please include the article URL and the point you believe needs attention.