Our Editorial policy

We’re not just pretty words on a page. This is your health. So we want to give you the most reliable info possible, to help give you the knowledge you need to stay healthy, and make informed choices.

Here’s what we do to make sure our content is accurate and accessible.

EveAdam hero icons on grey and white tiles


When producing content, our writers follow a process that ensures what you’re reading is:

  • relevant
  • accurate
  • clinically verified
  • and easy to understand.


Before any words are committed to the page, we perform our own research to find out what it is that most people want to know. We’ll do this with tools that help us see what queries users are searching for the most around a particular subject. And we’ll use this to inform the areas we need to cover in our content. This helps us to give you the most relevant information and that the most likely queries you have get answered. 

When covering a subject, we’ll strive to give as balanced a view on the information available as we can. To help us do this, we’ll use various sources to inform our writing and ensure we’re giving an accurate picture on a given health subject. 

This includes clinical trials and studies, as well as information from independent health organisations, state or government organisations, and education bodies such as universities.

Some examples of sources we use are:

  • medical or scientific journals
  • the Electronic Medicines Compendium (emc)  
  • the British National Formulary (BNF)
  • the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE)
  • the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA)
  • and the NHS


After production, all content goes through an editorial check within the content team, before being reviewed by a member of the clinical team (a doctor or a pharmacist). 

For transparency, you’ll always see which member of the clinical team reviewed a page clearly displayed. You’ll also find a link to their bio, which contains their credentials and professional registration number.

Throughout the content production process, special care is given to using plain English. Where medical terminology is used, we’ll make sure we explain what this term means in short order.


Once a piece of content has been produced and passed through these checks, we’ll publish it for you to read.

We’ll make amendments to a piece of content after it’s been published in accordance with any new or relevant information becoming available. We’ll always aim to do this as soon as possible.

Every two years, we’ll conduct a blanket review of our content to ensure it’s still up to date and accurate, and make amendments where required. These reviews are carried out by a member of the editorial team and a member of the clinical team.

Each page contains a date stamp, displaying when the page was last updated.


When presenting you with statistics, data or a consensus, we’ll tell you where this came from. We’ll only use sources for our information that we’re confident are reliable and accurate. If something is a projection or an estimation, we’ll tell you. 

Before we relay data or information from a third party in any of our content, we’ll perform some checks:


The volume of respondents or size of the data set is one check we’ll do. What we consider to be reliable depends on what’s being measured, but as a general rule we consider data sets (or subsets of a larger study) that contain fewer than 50 respondents to be less than clinically reliable. 

Sometimes we’ll relay information from data sets of this size or smaller if they hold value from an anecdotal perspective or as an informal social experiment. But if we do relay such data, we’ll always do so with a clear explanation that it’s from a small data set that may not be clinically reliable.


We’ll only present data as clinically reliable if it has come from a reputable source. Some examples are:

  • a state or government-funded health body such as the NHS or NICE
  • a recognised analytics or data body such as YouGov or the ONS
  • peer-reviewed medical or science journals
  • a government-funded health charity
  • an internationally recognised pharmaceutical company (for example clinical trials)

If we make reference that we don’t consider to be clinically reliable (which is sometimes necessary in order to address what might be considered as misinformation around a specific topic or issue) we’ll always make our view of this data clear. 

If we suspect that the producer of the data has a commercial interest in it, or if they declare this, we’ll tell you.

We’ll only use information from sources that has been peer-reviewed, or reviewed by a clinician or clinical team. 


Data and studies take time. And the people that collate deserve to be credited as such. 

We’ll always clearly credit any information we use from a third party, with a referencing section at the foot of the page. Here, we’ll use the Harvard referencing convention to clearly display the author of the information, when and where the information was published, along with a link to the source wherever possible.


From time to time we’ll conduct our own research using data we’ve collected. When we do, we’ll present this to you in as transparent and accessible a manner as possible.

We’ll tell you:

  • how the data was collected and, without compromising privacy, who from
  • what methodology we used to arrive at any hypothesis
  • and who verified the data where applicable.

We’ll also consult a clinician in our modelling and data collection, and afterwards when forming a hypothesis, to ensure any information based on our own research we provide is reliable.

When using our own research, we won’t divulge personal information that can be used to identify persons taking part. 

In certain cases, we may conduct smaller studies or social experiments with specific people of note (for example athletes or personalities) and divulge the identity of the person(s) taking part. But we will only ever do this with the explicit prior consent to do so from that person (or persons).


We aren’t affiliated with any specific brands or pharmaceutical companies. Our aim is to offer as wide a selection of treatments as possible, while remaining safe and affordable for our users.

As such, we’re committed to impartiality, and we won’t promote any specific brand over another. 

We know that prices matter to you. We’ll tell you if a specific brand of treatment is cheaper than another. 

We know the effectiveness of treatment matters to you too. So we’ll present information on effectiveness as we find it from the clinical trial information presented with the treatment. And this may indicate that one brand of treatment is more effective than another. 

We’ll always tell you where you can find this information in further detail so you can view it for yourself.

EveAdam offers a service, and we will promote our own brand through our site and social channels. In doing so, we may indirectly promote the use of vendors and partners we work with to provide our services. But we will state if we have a relationship with an external vendor.

We may provide information on services available from other organisations such as charities or public health bodies, as a reference for further help or information. But we won’t endorse any commercial services besides our own.


We’re committed to your privacy and those of our partners. We won’t ever disclose personal information or details of any communication between us and another individual or organisation in our content.

When we do use comments or quotes from a spokesperson or healthcare professional, we’ll only do this with their prior consent.


As we’ve said elsewhere: you’re you, and completely unique. And we firmly believe that clinical advice isn’t one size fits all. 

So while the content on our site is intended to be reliable, accurate and helpful info, it doesn’t constitute health advice, and shouldn’t be taken as such. What works best for you is for you and a clinician to determine through a consultation. 

If you’re not sure about something or have a health question, always ask a doctor or clinician.


We make our content for you.

So if we missed something, we want to know. 

If you thought something was particularly helpful or wasn’t helpful enough, we want to know about that too.

This applies if you’re a user of our service, a casual reader, or a healthcare professional.

To give us feedback, get in touch with us over email, or drop us a message on our social channels.