How We Review

Two separate things happen under the word "review" on this site: how we describe the strength of evidence behind a claim, and who checks a page's medical content before it publishes. Here is exactly what each one means.

USPSTF grades: A through D, and I

Where a screening recommendation carries an official U.S. Preventive Services Task Force grade, we show that letter directly rather than paraphrase it. The grades mean:

A The USPSTF recommends the service. There is high certainty that the net benefit is substantial.
B The USPSTF recommends the service. There is high certainty the net benefit is moderate, or moderate certainty the net benefit is moderate to substantial.
C The USPSTF recommends selectively offering or providing the service based on professional judgment and individual circumstances. This is an individual, not a blanket, recommendation.
D The USPSTF recommends against the service. There is at least moderate certainty that it has no net benefit, or that the harms outweigh the benefits.
I The USPSTF found the current evidence insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms.

In short: A and B mean the Task Force recommends the service outright. C means the decision is selective and individual, worth a conversation with your clinician rather than a blanket yes. D means the Task Force recommends against it. I means the evidence has not yet answered the question either way. Rows in the Guideline Tracker that come from the CDC or ACIP instead of the USPSTF, such as vaccination schedules, do not carry a USPSTF letter grade, since that grading system is specific to the Task Force; those rows show the recommending authority instead.

How we describe evidence strength

Where a page evaluates a broader body of evidence, such as a lifestyle lever or a popular health claim, rather than a single graded screening recommendation, we use a five-point strength scale instead of the USPSTF letters, since that scale does not apply outside Task Force recommendations:

StrongMultiple well-designed studies point the same direction, with limited meaningful disagreement.
ModerateGood supporting evidence exists, but with real gaps, smaller studies, or some inconsistency.
LimitedSome evidence points this way, but it is thin, early, or drawn from a narrow population.
InsufficientNot enough good evidence exists yet to draw a real conclusion.
MixedGood studies exist on both sides, and they disagree.

Medical review: the honest rule

A reviewed-by byline on this site is meant to mean one specific thing: a named, credentialed clinician actually read that page and checked its clinical content. We do not use that byline loosely, and we do not let an editor without a clinical credential stand in for a clinician.

Pages show "Pending medical review" until a named clinician reviews them. A reviewed-by byline never appears before that review actually happens. You can see exactly where clinician review currently stands, including whether a reviewer has been named yet, on the reviewer page.

This means some pages on this site today carry a "Pending medical review" marker rather than a reviewed-by name. That is the honest state, not an error. Every page, reviewed or pending, still cites its claims to a primary source with a last-verified date; see methodology for how that verification works, and editorial policy for the full sourcing and correction rules.