Medical Review Policy

When medical review
is required—and what it covers.

Not every skincare page needs medical review. Some topics are primarily practical or cosmetic, while others involve safety, diagnosis, contraindications or treatment decisions.

This policy explains how Skin Candid decides when medical review is required and what a medical reviewer is responsible for checking.

Core principle

Medical review is assigned by risk and subject matter—not for decoration.

A medical reviewer’s name should not be added simply to make a page look more authoritative. Medical review is used when clinical accuracy, safety boundaries or escalation guidance genuinely require medical expertise.

A page is credited as medically reviewed only after the named reviewer has actually completed the relevant review.

Medical review is normally required

Topics with meaningful clinical or safety implications receive a higher review standard.

Diagnosable skin conditions

Content about acne, rosacea, eczema, dermatitis, infections, persistent rashes or other conditions that may require diagnosis or treatment.

Safety and contraindications

Claims involving pregnancy, breastfeeding, allergies, medication interactions, contraindications or significant adverse effects.

Prescription and medical treatments

Pages discussing prescription retinoids, antibiotics, procedures, injectables, devices or medical-aesthetic treatments.

Red flags and escalation

Guidance about when symptoms may need professional assessment, urgent attention or a change in treatment.

High-risk claims

Statements about treating disease, preventing harm, reversing pathology or producing clinically significant outcomes.

Uncertain or conflicting safety evidence

Topics where the available evidence is limited, mixed or difficult for a general reader to interpret safely.

Medical review may not be required

Some pages are primarily editorial, practical or navigational.

These pages can still require sourcing and editorial review without needing a medical reviewer.

Examples

  • Basic category and directory pages
  • Routine organisation without medical claims
  • Texture, packaging and usability discussions
  • Simple product comparisons without safety implications
  • Navigation, glossary and introductory hub pages
  • Editorial and commercial policy pages

What still applies

  • Accurate sourcing
  • Clear limitations
  • Conflict and commercial disclosures
  • Editorial review
  • Practical skincare review when appropriate
  • Scheduled updates

Medical reviewer responsibilities

The reviewer checks clinical boundaries—not every design or editorial decision.

Clinical accuracy

Checks that medical statements, terminology and treatment descriptions are accurate and appropriately qualified.

Safety boundaries

Reviews contraindications, adverse effects, pregnancy guidance, interactions, warnings and risk-related language.

Escalation guidance

Checks when the page advises readers to seek professional assessment or stop self-management.

Claim strength

Reviews whether the wording matches the actual strength and limitations of the available evidence.

What medical review does not mean

A medically reviewed page is still general education.

Medical review does not turn a page into personal medical advice, a diagnosis or an individual treatment plan.

It does not guarantee that every product, ingredient or treatment is suitable for every reader. Personal history, medications, allergies, pregnancy status and existing conditions can change what is appropriate.

Relationship with practical skincare review

Medical and practical review answer different questions.

Medical review asks

  • Is the clinical information accurate?
  • Are safety boundaries clear?
  • Are contraindications and red flags covered?
  • Does the wording overstate the evidence?
  • Should professional assessment be recommended?

Practical skincare review asks

  • Is the routine realistic?
  • Is the application advice usable?
  • Are tolerability and layering explained clearly?
  • Does the recommendation make sense in daily life?
  • Can the reader follow the guidance without unnecessary complexity?
Authority is not interchangeable

A practical reviewer does not approve medical claims. A medical reviewer does not automatically determine product usability, routine convenience or everyday skincare experience.

Review process

Medical review is documented as part of the page trust record.

01

Requirement identified

The page type, claim type and safety profile determine whether medical review is required.

02

Reviewer assigned

A named medical reviewer is assigned only when they are expected to complete the actual review.

03

Claims checked

Medical and safety claims are reviewed against the assigned sources, evidence level and limitations.

04

Changes resolved

Required corrections, qualifications or escalation guidance are incorporated before completion.

05

Status recorded

The page records reviewer, review status, review date and next scheduled review.

06

Future changes monitored

Meaningful evidence, safety or treatment changes may trigger a new medical review.

Publication rule

Required medical review cannot be bypassed.

If a page requires medical review, it cannot reach trust-ready status without a named medical reviewer and a completed medical-review status.

Suggested reviewers, planned assignments and internal notes are not treated as completed review.

Reviewer identity and credentials

Credentials must be represented accurately.

Skin Candid records reviewer roles, professional scope and credential-verification status separately.

A reviewer profile should not imply verified credentials until verification is complete. Reviewer descriptions must remain within the person’s actual professional scope.

Updates and re-review

Medical review is not permanent.

A page may require re-review when the evidence, treatment guidance, product formula, safety profile or professional recommendations materially change.

Scheduled review

Relevant pages receive a next review date based on topic risk and how quickly the information may change.

Evidence change

New research or updated professional guidance may trigger an earlier review.

Safety change

New warnings, contraindications or adverse-event information may require immediate reassessment.

Reader correction

Credible reports of possible medical inaccuracies are investigated and escalated when appropriate.