Direct answer
A clinical review should be performed by a qualified dental professional whose expertise fits the subject. The reviewer checks clinical accuracy, balance, safety, alternatives, evidence interpretation, and patient-facing language before documented approval. A person’s name and review date should be published only after that review is completed and recorded.
Key takeaways
- Editorial evidence research and clinical approval are separate responsibilities.
- Reviewer expertise should match the page’s topic and level of risk.
- No reviewer is assigned automatically by a template or organizational affiliation.
- A publication date is not a clinical-review date.
Stage 1: editorial preparation
The editorial process defines the question, searches and verifies suitable sources, drafts the direct answer and context, labels evidence limits, checks internal links, and removes promotional or diagnostic language. Citations are matched to the claims they support.
Stage 2: qualified clinical review
The clinician evaluates whether the content is accurate, appropriately cautious, relevant to real clinical decisions, clear about alternatives and warning signs, and unlikely to encourage unsafe self-treatment. Requested changes are resolved before sign-off.
Stage 3: documentation and attribution
The internal record should identify the page version, reviewer, credentials or relevant role, date, scope, disclosures, requested changes, and approval. Public reviewer attribution is added only when that record exists. If a page does not name an individual reviewer, readers should not infer one from the site template.
Substantive reassessment
New evidence, product changes, regulatory action, safety concerns, changed standards, or a correction can trigger reassessment. A visible review date changes only after the substance has genuinely been reviewed—not merely because a page was republished, reformatted, or automatically touched.