Medical Review & Fact-Checking Policy

Clinical Governance • Medical Fact-Checking Standards

At Empower Health Group, we recognise that inaccurate health information can lead to genuine personal harm. Our Medical Review and Fact-Checking Policy governs how all health, clinical, and lifestyle claims are evaluated by registered medical practitioners before publication.

---

1. The Medical Review Mandate

The internet contains vast amounts of speculative wellness claims, unverified dietary fads, and commercial marketing disguised as health education. Our mandate is to serve as a reliable, clinically verified bridge between complex medical literature and everyday Australian living.

Any article published on Empower Health Group that discusses physiological pathways, symptoms, diagnostic tests, dietary interventions, medications, or exercise protocols must undergo appraisal by our clinical panel before being designated as “Medically Reviewed.”

2. Medical Reviewer Qualifications & Credentials

Our Medical Review Board comprises credentialed, practicing healthcare professionals registered with statutory Australian regulatory authorities:

• Medical Practitioners: General Practitioners (GPs) and medical specialists holding active, unrestricted registration with the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) and fellowship with peak bodies such as the RACGP.
• Accredited Practising Dietitians (APDs): Nutrition and metabolic specialists credentialed by Dietitians Australia.
• Accredited Exercise Physiologists (AEPs): Allied health professionals accredited through Exercise & Sports Science Australia (ESSA).
• Registered Psychologists: Mental health clinicians registered with the Psychology Board of Australia.

Reviewers evaluate content solely within their registered scope of practice. You can learn more about our board members on our dedicated Authors & Reviewers page.

3. The 6-Point Medical Fact-Checking Checklist

Prior to approving any draft, the appointed clinical reviewer must systematically evaluate the manuscript against our six core quality pillars:

Point 1: Clinical Safety & Risk Minimisation

The reviewer ensures the guidance cannot cause physiological harm if followed by a member of the general public. Potential contraindications (e.g., pregnancy, chronic renal disease, cardiovascular risk) and red-flag symptoms must be prominently highlighted.

Point 2: Study Quality & Evidence Validity

The reviewer verifies that cited studies are high on the clinical evidence pyramid (such as Cochrane systematic reviews, NHMRC meta-analyses, and peer-reviewed clinical trials). Animal or in vitro studies must not be extrapolated as proven human clinical outcomes.

Point 3: Statistical Precision & Context

The reviewer scrutinises statistics to prevent misleading reporting. Relative risk increases (e.g., “doubles your risk”) must always be contextualised with absolute population risk figures to avoid alarmist health journalism.

Point 4: Dosage, Bioavailability & Timing

When nutritional elements, micronutrients, or hydration strategies are discussed, recommendations must align with established dietary guidelines (such as the Australian Dietary Guidelines) and safe upper intake limits established by the NHMRC.

Point 5: Australian Regulatory Alignment

Health guidance must reflect Australian healthcare infrastructure: reference to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS), Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS), Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) scheduling, and national screening programmes.

Point 6: Clinical Referral Triggers

The article must explicitly instruct readers when lifestyle strategies are insufficient and formal medical consultation with an AHPRA-registered General Practitioner is mandatory.

4. Clinical Independence & Integrity Protections

Medical reviewers are retained solely to provide unbiased scientific evaluation. Under our governance model:

• Fixed Remuneration: Reviewers are compensated for their clinical review time regardless of whether they approve or reject an article draft.
• Veto Authority: Reviewers possess absolute editorial veto power over any claim they deem scientifically unsubstantiated or potentially harmful.
• No Commercial Influence: Reviewers do not review content regarding products or companies with which they maintain a commercial, consulting, or financial association.

Learn more about our strict conflict of interest guidelines in our formal Editorial Policy.

5. Managing Scientific Uncertainty & Evolving Research

Medical science is not static. When clinical evidence is nascent, contradictory, or subject to debate within the medical community:

• We present the prevailing clinical consensus first and foremost.
• Emerging alternative hypotheses are clearly labelled as “preliminary” or “under investigation.”
• We explicitly distinguish between statistical association and biological causation.

6. Cyclical Re-Review & Corrections

Clinical recommendations can change as new clinical trial results are released. To maintain current validity:

• Articles undergo scheduled re-review by medical reviewers on an ongoing cyclical schedule.
• Any significant changes in national treatment guidelines trigger immediate ad-hoc medical re-evaluation.
• Factual modifications post-publication are catalogued in accordance with our transparent Corrections Policy.

---

7. Questions, Feedback & Review Enquiries

We welcome feedback from healthcare providers, researchers, and readers. If you have questions about the clinical verification of a specific article or wish to challenge a cited clinical source:

• Medical Review Desk Email: [email protected] (Please use subject “Medical Review Inquiry”)
• Contact Form: Direct Contact Page
• Editorial Governance: Editorial Standards & Policy