Editorial Policy

Purpose and responsibility

Solutions in Pain publishes general patient education to help readers understand conditions, treatment concepts, evidence, and questions to discuss with a qualified healthcare professional. Website content does not diagnose a condition, determine candidacy, replace an examination, or create a physician-patient relationship.

Solutions in Pain is responsible for the content it publishes. Publication decisions remain human decisions even when software or AI-assisted tools support research, drafting, editing, or quality checks.

Editorial team and authorship

The Solutions in Pain Editorial Team describes organizational editorial work, which may include topic planning, evidence organization, drafting, editing, design, technical review, and publication operations. It does not mean that a physician wrote or medically reviewed an article.

A physician name, authorship statement, medical-review statement, credential, or review date appears only when that person actually performed the stated work and the review record matches the exact published version.

AI-assisted work

AI-assisted tools may support private research organization, drafting, editing, consistency checks, structured review, and image ideation. They do not provide medical approval and cannot publish content autonomously.

Automated output is constrained by governed source records and deterministic checks. A clinically important unsupported claim is corrected, narrowed, or held from publication rather than accepted because it sounds plausible.

Evidence and review

Research is organized before drafting. The process seeks relevant limitations, negative findings, and conflicting conclusions as well as supportive evidence. Citation identity and bibliographic facts are checked against governed source records.

An independent adversarial review may test the rendered article for unsupported claims, missing nuance, evidence mismatch, promotional framing, or incomplete coverage. Deterministic checks verify required review surfaces and evidence bindings. Neither step substitutes for physician approval when physician approval is required.

Physician input and approval

Physician clinical input may inform an article when it adds useful decision context or practice experience. Experiential perspective is distinguished from published evidence.

When an article states that it was medically reviewed, approval is bound to deterministic hashes of the exact article, rendered claims, evidence snapshot, educational images, and SEO metadata reviewed. A material change invalidates the prior approval and requires renewed review.

Images, links, and search presentation

Clinical and educational images are reviewed for accuracy, usefulness, provenance, and duplication before they become publication-eligible. Decorative novelty does not substitute for medical teaching value.

Internal links resolve through governed site routes. Titles, descriptions, canonical URLs, social metadata, structured data, and visible review information must describe the same approved content truthfully.

Updates and corrections

A visible update date reflects a substantive reviewed revision, not a formatting-only change. Evidence, links, and clinical statements may be reassessed as knowledge or practice changes.

Confirmed material errors are handled under the Corrections Policy. Published content may be corrected, revised, consolidated, withdrawn, or retired when that is the most accurate treatment; those actions require appropriate human review.

Read the Corrections Policy