Medical review policy
What we check, how we check it, and — the part most health sites leave out — exactly what has not been checked.
Last changed
Current status: no clinician review
No article on this site has been reviewed by a doctor or audiologist. Not one. We are stating that plainly rather than leaving it to be inferred, because “medically reviewed” badges are widely applied to content nobody clinical has read, and that erodes the value of the label for everyone.
The system for crediting reviewers is built and sits unused. When a qualified clinician genuinely reviews an article, their name, credentials and the review date appear on it. Until then, no article claims review, because none has had one.
What we do instead
Every article lists the named, checkable sources its claims draw on — peer-reviewed studies, clinical guidelines and recognised health bodies such as NIDCD, NICE or the WHO among them. The intent is that you do not have to trust us: you can go from an article to the research behind it and judge it yourself. The automated checks run against those sources, and what each of them cannot see, are published on how we check.
- Claims are checked against the source. The rule is that a number or a study finding is read in the original — the paper or its published abstract — rather than repeated from another article citing it.
- Inconvenient findings stay in. Where the evidence is mixed, both sides appear. A treatment with one encouraging small trial and one larger null result is described as exactly that.
- Evidence strength is stated, not implied. See how we rate evidence.
- No diagnosis, ever. Nothing on this site identifies the cause of your tinnitus. That requires a clinician who can examine you.
What a reviewer would be asked to do
Documented in advance so the standard is fixed before anyone is engaged, rather than shaped around whoever agrees:
- Hold a current clinical qualification relevant to the subject — audiology, ENT, or a related specialty
- Confirm that the article’s claims match the cited sources
- Flag anything overstated, outdated, or unsafe
- Be named, with credentials that can be verified independently
- Declare any commercial interest in a treatment, device or company discussed
Are you an audiologist or ENT?
This site would like its articles read by people qualified to catch what a source check cannot. If you hold a current clinical qualification in audiology, otolaryngology or a related specialty, this is what a review would involve.
- One article at a time. You read it against the sources it cites, and flag anything overstated, outdated or unsafe. Nothing is changed in your name without your agreement.
- What is published. Your name, a link where your credential can be verified independently, the date of your review, and a sentence saying what it covered — on the article, and on this site’s contributors page.
- Interests declared. Any commercial interest in a treatment, device or company the article discusses is stated beside your name.
- A review covers the version you read. When the article is later substantively revised, the page stops presenting it as reviewed, or says plainly that it has changed since, until you have read the new version.
Email ask@tinnitusclarified.com with the subject “Clinical review”, and say which articles fall within your practice.
Independence
Tinnitus Clarified is independent and has no commercial relationship with any treatment, device, clinic or supplement discussed on the site. Where a page contains an affiliate link, it carries a disclosure at the top. No coverage decision, evidence rating or recommendation is influenced by commercial arrangements, and no company has any input into what appears here.
Corrections
When we get something wrong, the article is fixed and the change is logged publicly on the corrections page rather than quietly edited. If you have spotted an error, tell us which article and what is wrong through the contact form.