Condition directory standard

How we review health and condition pages

Condition pages should help people understand patterns and support needs without turning a website into a diagnostic tool or making treatment promises the evidence does not support.

Current sitewide audit: older condition pages are being brought onto this standard. Existing pages remain educational material and should not be used to diagnose a person or change prescribed treatment.

Wording rules

No certainty where evidence is mixed

Use terms such as “can”, “may”, “is associated with” and “some people” rather than claiming a treatment always works or a trait is universal.

Diagnosis belongs with qualified professionals

Pages can explain assessment pathways and diagnostic criteria, but should not tell a reader that they or their child definitely has a condition.

Treatment claims need evidence

Medication, therapy, dietary change, supplements and behavioural interventions should not be described as cures unless an authoritative source supports that exact claim.

Support is broader than diagnosis

Practical adjustments and support can be useful even where diagnosis is uncertain, delayed or not sought.

Preferred sources

For UK health information we prioritise NHS, NICE and recognised professional guidance. For US clinical information we prioritise federal health agencies and established professional bodies. Primary research can add context but should not be used to overstate certainty.

What gets checked

Area	Review question
Definition	Is it a formal diagnosis, profile, symptom cluster, descriptive term or community term?
Traits and presentation	Are examples presented as possible experiences rather than a checklist that “proves” diagnosis?
Causes	Are causal claims distinguished from associations and risk factors?
Treatment/support	Are benefits, limitations, uncertainty and professional oversight represented accurately?
Safety	Does the page direct urgent or high-risk issues to appropriate professional or emergency support?