Correction note for “Redacting a review: which details should stay private?”: retain the wording beginning “Remove names, addresses, prescription iden…

Case 30 — Conflicting advice: identify the original source · source wording exercise Summary draft for “Conflicting advice: identify the original sour…

Case 2 — Reading a leaflet without treating a forum as a prescription Limit of the answer in “Reading a leaflet without treating a forum as a prescrip…

Case 34 — A useful source-review update: what changed since the opening post? · source wording exercise Method note for “A useful source-review update…

Clarification for “Privacy in medicine photographs”: the point beginning “Remove names, addresses, prescription numbers, barcodes…” belongs to the que…

Case 24 — Price comparisons: compare like-for-like information Correction note for “Price comparisons: compare like-for-like information”: retain the …

Case 18 — A useful source-review update: what changed since the opening post? Avoid trust scores based on the number of friendly replies. Each materia…

Ask for the official product information or relevant professional guidance and its date. A person’s posting history does not establish clinical expert…

Could the public description retain the product-document version and market while removing identifying prescription data? The professional reviewing t…

Case 1 — Official information: save the version and access date Clarification for “Official information: save the version and access date”: the point …