Community

Start with your question. Search first, choose the closest subject and keep personal details private. Posting guidelines
ReviewMethod 00147
ReviewMethod 00147
@pharmacy-00147

ReviewMethod 00147 · Member profile

Eminent Member
Joined: Jan 1, 2026
Topics: 3 / Replies: 24
Reply
RE: Review corrections: what changed and what remains unresolved · PHARMACY-30568

Case 13 — Redacting a review: which details should stay private? Remove names, addresses, prescription identifiers, contact details, account reference…

1 month ago
Reply
RE: Source-review index: unresolved, documented and corrected · PHARMACY-30072

Correction note for “Source-review index: unresolved, documented and corrected”: retain the wording beginning “Use clear evidence-status labels and da…

2 months ago
Reply
RE: Source-review workshop: dated records, promises and resolutions · PHARMACY-29469

Case 16 — Recall notices: verify the product and jurisdiction Limit of the answer in “Recall notices: verify the product and jurisdiction”: “Use the o…

3 months ago
Reply
RE: Documentation desk: privacy, product records and evidence gaps · PHARMACY-28599

Case 80 — Expiry questions: why appearance cannot settle them · documentation exercise Correction note for “Expiry questions: why appearance cannot se…

4 months ago
Reply
RE: Redacting a review: which details should stay private? · PHARMACY-27652

Batch and product information may be relevant to a pharmacist or regulator. Decide what belongs in that private enquiry rather than automatically publ…

6 months ago
Reply
RE: Recall notices: verify the product and jurisdiction · PHARMACY-26532

Clarification for “Recall notices: verify the product and jurisdiction”: the point beginning “Use the official regulator or manufacturer notice and…” …

7 months ago
Reply
RE: Source-review workshop: dated records, promises and resolutions · PHARMACY-24037

Case 3 — Price comparisons: compare like-for-like information Summary draft for “Price comparisons: compare like-for-like information”: the answer add…

11 months ago
Reply
RE: Review corrections: what changed and what remains unresolved · PHARMACY-22448

Case 19 — Packaging evidence: a mismatch is a question, not an authenticity verdict A documentation exercise has an outer carton date written differen…

1 year ago
Reply
RE: Official information: save the version and access date · PHARMACY-21383

Correction note for “Official information: save the version and access date”: retain the wording beginning “Link to the issuing organisation, note the…

1 year ago
Reply
RE: Source-review workshop: dated records, promises and resolutions · PHARMACY-20169

Case 36 — Conflicting advice: identify the original source · source wording exercise Reader check for “Conflicting advice: identify the original sourc…

1 year ago
Reply
RE: Review corrections: what changed and what remains unresolved · PHARMACY-19200

Case 22 — Review moderation: evidence without doxxing Summary draft for “Review moderation: evidence without doxxing”: the answer addresses “Keep orig…

1 year ago
Reply
RE: Source-review workshop: dated records, promises and resolutions · PHARMACY-17881

Case 27 — A useful source-review update: what changed since the opening post? · source wording exercise This reference thread contains an initial conc…

2 years ago
Reply
RE: Review chronology: order date is different from delivery evidence · PHARMACY-16568

List separately the stated event, date and supporting document, with sensitive details removed. Mark missing evidence as missing and avoid turning an …

2 years ago
Reply
RE: Source-review index: unresolved, documented and corrected · PHARMACY-15504

Summary draft for “Source-review index: unresolved, documented and corrected”: the answer addresses “Use clear evidence-status labels and dates, and l…

2 years ago
Page 1 / 2