# Health Claim Editorial Review

Escalate health-related claims and inspect evidence strength, population, uncertainty, benefits, harms, audience risk, conflicts, and specialist review.

## Usage note

Use this worksheet to triage and document editorial review, never to diagnose, treat, or replace medical, regulatory, legal, or clinical judgment. Health content can cause harm when incorrect or misapplied. A qualified medical and compliance reviewer should determine evidence, wording, warnings, and applicable requirements. Direct urgent personal concerns to appropriate local professional or emergency care through approved routes.

## How to use this template

1. Extract every explicit and implied health claim, audience, context, product, and invited action.
2. Triage consequence and route the claim to qualified medical, evidence, regulatory, and compliance owners.
3. Map wording to suitable evidence, population, comparator, outcome, effect, uncertainty, and harm.
4. Revise benefits, risks, boundaries, and next steps as directed by reviewers.
5. Record approvals, sources, dates, monitoring, correction, and urgent update ownership.

## Blank template

### Claim triage

- **Claim ID and exact wording:** [Copy text]
- **Location:** [Headline, body, image, caption, metadata, ad]
- **Claim type:** [Diagnosis, risk, prevention, treatment, safety, mechanism]
- **Audience/population:** [Age, condition, setting, other]
- **Invited action:** [Use, stop, buy, delay, monitor, seek care]
- **Consequence if wrong:** [Specific harm]
- **Product/intervention and status:** [Exact]
- **Geography/version/date:** [Scope]
- **Medical reviewer:** [Qualified role]
- **Compliance/regulatory owner:** [Qualified role]

### Evidence review

- **Evidence source:** [Citation/version]
- **Design and population:** [Study/guidance details]
- **Comparator and outcome:** [Exact]
- **Effect size and uncertainty:** [Absolute where appropriate]
- **Duration/follow-up:** [Period]
- **Harms/contraindications:** [Evidence]
- **Funding/conflict:** [Relevant relationship]
- **Generalizability limit:** [Who/what is not supported]
- **Total-evidence context:** [Agreement/disagreement]
- **Approved wording:** [Reviewer-directed text]

### Publication checks

- [ ] Headline and metadata receive the same scrutiny as body text.
- [ ] Evidence type matches the claim's certainty.
- [ ] Population and outcome are not broadened.
- [ ] Absolute effects and uncertainty are understandable where relevant.
- [ ] Risks and contraindications remain near benefits.
- [ ] Personalized advice-like language is escalated.
- [ ] Disclaimer is not used to excuse a misleading claim.
- [ ] Sources, reviewers, update triggers, and correction route are documented.