Medical review

PCOSguides has no medical reviewer. No board, no panel, no clinician on retainer, no one signing off before an article publishes. Sarah Collins researches and writes every article, and she is not a doctor or a dietitian. Until a credentialed reviewer is contracted, every article names the clinical guideline it was checked against instead of a reviewer.

What medical review means, and why this site cannot claim it

Medical review is a specific job, not a badge. It means a named person with an active licence — a physician, a nurse practitioner, a pharmacist, or a registered dietitian — reads the article before it publishes, checks each claim against the sources, says what is wrong, and puts their name, credentials, and registration on the result. You can then look that person up on a public register and see for yourself.

None of that has happened here. What happens instead is a research and sourcing process run by one person, described in full on the editorial policy page.

Sarah is not a doctor or a dietitian. Nothing on this site is a diagnosis or a treatment plan, and every article names the point at which you should be talking to a clinician instead of reading.

What every article is checked against instead

Every article is checked against the 2023 International Evidence-Based Guideline for the Assessment and Management of PCOS, and every article says so in its byline where a reviewer's name would otherwise sit. That is a real standard and articles link to it. But a guideline is a document, not a person: it cannot read a specific article, notice what was left out, or tell you that a dose is wrong for you.

Here is the honest split between what is checked today and what is not.

What a reviewer would not cover, even once there is one

A reviewer's name raises the floor on accuracy. It does not turn an article into advice about you, and the day one appears on this site that stays true.

• It is not about your case. A reviewer checks whether a claim is accurate in general — not whether it fits your labs, your medications, or your cycle.
• It is not a diagnosis or a prescription. Nothing here tells you what you have or what to take.
• It does not make an article permanent. Guidelines change. Anything carrying a dose is re-reviewed every 12 months and immediately when the guidance behind it moves.
• It does not extend to prices, product availability, or anything a manufacturer changes after publication.

Which articles get a reviewer first

The order is set now, in public, so that it does not get decided later by whatever is convenient.

1. Anything carrying a dose. Supplement and medication articles name amounts, units, and timing. A wrong number there is the fastest way to harm a reader, so those go first. Until they are reviewed, every dose on this site is quoted alongside the trial it came from, so you can check the number yourself.
2. Fertility. Ovulation tracking on an irregular cycle, what letrozole and clomid do, and when to see a reproductive endocrinologist. The stakes and the costs are highest here, and a hopeful phrasing does the most damage. Second.
3. Everything else — diagnosis and lab interpretation, then weight and insulin resistance, then symptoms, diet, and movement.

Reviewed articles will carry the reviewer's name, their credentials, their licence or registration number where one applies, and the date they read it. Articles they have not read will keep saying which guideline they were checked against. Nothing gets a name added retroactively, and no article is described as reviewed because a reviewer exists somewhere on the site.

Are you a clinician or a registered dietitian?

This is an open invitation and a real one. Physicians in endocrinology, obstetrics and gynaecology, reproductive endocrinology or family medicine; nurse practitioners; pharmacists; and registered dietitians — with an active licence or registration you are willing to have published next to your name.

What the work actually is:

• Read articles inside your own scope. Nobody is asked to sign off on a subject they do not practise in.
• Mark what is wrong, what is out of date, and what is missing. A rejection is more useful than an approval.
• Sign only the articles you read. Your name goes on those and nowhere else.
• Re-read anything carrying a dose once a year, or sooner if the guidance changes underneath it.

Send your name, your credential and where it is registered, the areas you would want (dosage and fertility are the two that matter first), your terms, and the turnaround you can hold. Email support@pcosguides.com. If you cannot take it on but know someone who could, forwarding this page helps.

Why this page tells you what it lacks

It would take an afternoon to put three headshots and the words "Our Medical Review Board" at the top of this page. Almost nobody would check. Health sites do it.

There are two reasons not to. The first is that it would be a lie, and a lie on a health site eventually reaches someone at 11pm who acts on it. The second is narrower and worth saying plainly: a page that tells you what it does not have is the only kind you can calibrate against. If this site will admit it has no reviewer, you have a reason to believe the rest of what it tells you about how an article was made.

When this changes it will change here first, with a name, a credential, and a registration number you can check against a public register. Until then the byline on every article says it was checked against a guideline, because that is what actually happened.