E-E-A-T standard

Medical Review Process

FormBlends publishes YMYL health content, so review standards need to be explicit. The current process is source review by the FormBlends editorial standards team, with provider and pharmacist review language used only where that review is actually part of the page workflow.

Claim-level review

Medical claims should be checked at the sentence level against a source that can support the actual wording. Strong pages distinguish human trials, animal research, mechanistic reasoning, FDA labeling, and public enforcement records.

Claim wordingSource typePopulationDose and duration

Safety and scope review

Every treatment-facing page should make the boundary clear: education is not personal medical advice. Pages should surface contraindications, red flags, compounding limits, and when a clinician should review the next step.

ContraindicationsAdverse eventsClinical limitsRed flags

Update review

Fast-moving topics such as GLP-1 shortages, compounding rules, FDA alerts, and pipeline drugs need update checks. Static evergreen pages should still show a stable review date rather than fake freshness.

FDA changesNew trialsShortage statusLast reviewed date

Direct answers

Does every page have a named medical reviewer today?

No. The site currently uses an organizational editorial standards process on many pages. Named clinician reviewers should be added only when the reviewer, credential, scope, and date can be shown truthfully.

What should be reviewed first?

Highest-impact YMYL pages should come first: GLP-1 product pages, peptide safety pages, dosing-related pages, pharmacy and compounding pages, and comparison pages that influence treatment decisions.

Related trust pages

Source standards

See the hierarchy used for trials, FDA sources, and public datasets.

Editorial policy

Review corrections, pricing checks, and conflict disclosures.

Editorial standards team

See the current source-review standard.