Even a carefully researched article can need attention later. Guidance changes, medicines acquire new warnings and links stop working. This policy describes how FreeBooks4Doctors.com should reassess medical articles and maintain entries in its book directory.
Read the dates separately
The dates on an article answer different questions:
- Published: when the article first appeared.
- Last updated: when an editorial change was made.
- Medical review date: when the named clinician approved that version.
- Evidence searched through: when the search for that version was completed.
- Next review due: the planned deadline for another assessment.
Changing a date alone does not make an article current. A spelling correction, layout change or automated save must not be described as a fresh medical review. Where a review date has not been recorded, say so. Never substitute the publication date.
Set a review date that fits the subject
When an article is reviewed and accepted for publication, both the editor and reviewer(s) should agree upon a future review date. A twelve-month timeline is used as a baseline (not a guarantee) to determine a reasonable timeframe to evaluate topics that generally pose no significant risks. However, many issues may warrant more frequent evaluations. Rapidly evolving fields of study, new treatments or new guidelines issued with a high potential for patient harm, could reasonably necessitate review prior to the previously agreed-upon timeline. The chosen review date should be documented with each article. Book listings may follow a similar process for reviewing entries based upon the needs of maintaining access to resources, determining updates of editions, and identifying broken links.
Schedule-based reviews are only one indicator. Editors should also address changes to critical guidelines or safety alerts, retractions from publications, complaints or concerns raised by authors or reviewers, etc. We cannot commit to monitoring all possible publications or issuing continuous alerts.
What an update should involve
First, the editor should attempt to determine what elements may have been altered. Clinical revisions require an evidence search for the latest relevant research findings. Once identified, the editor should revise the text of the article and/or its accompanying references, images/captions as required. Substantial clinical revisions require approval by an appropriate medical reviewer before the revised article is presented as medically reviewed.
Any revision should consider the entire article. A corrected paragraph does not provide sufficient justification to maintain other areas of the article with outdated messages.
If a repeat evidence search has occurred, record the completion date of the search. If only repair of a link has occurred, continue to use the previous evidence date unless the underlying evidence was also reevaluated.
Changed and overdue articles
Each approval represents a specific version of an article. Changes in clinical content, title, examples, or supporting illustrations may also result in renewed review. Technical processes used by a website may assist in identifying changes; however, editors must also account for items external to the article itself including an image being removed/added/replaced or an element being removed/replaced/shared among multiple articles.
Articles whose next scheduled review date has expired should display that fact. An overdue date does not mean that every statement is inaccurate. It means the planned assessment has not been completed.
Should a complaint raise a legitimate concern about harm to patients, the editor must assess whether a warning is warranted, whether recommendations/advice provided by the article should be withdrawn or whether the article should be taken offline until the issue is resolved. A planned review date, whether it has passed or is still ahead, is not a reason to leave a known problem unresolved.
The existing archive
FreeBooks4Doctors.com articles that were developed prior to implementation of this policy or prior to establishing a new Verification Panel are not automatically accredited according to this policy nor according to the new Verification Panel. These older articles should be judged using today’s editorial standards with particular emphasis placed on recommending removal of dangerous advice and/or unsubstantiated claims; missing documentation related to past reviews; and rapidly developing topics.
Some older articles may benefit from improvements/reviews. Other articles may need limitations clearly defined, substantially rewritten, removed or replaced. A batch of older articles must not be given a named review credit merely because that person has a profile on the site or has reviewed other work.
Record meaningful changes
Material corrections should have a dated explanation under the Corrections and Editorial Complaints Policy. Keep the original publication date and enough editorial history to understand why an article changed.
The editorial team should review these policies when its working practices change and at least annually as a planning target. To flag an outdated article, use Contact Us and identify the passage and newer source you think we should examine.