Our current status, stated plainly

No content on this site has been reviewed by a licensed clinician.

Every page carries the status "source verified". That means our editorial team has checked the content against the public sources cited on the page, confirmed those sources say what we report them as saying, and confirmed the links resolve.

It does not mean a doctor, pharmacist, or nurse has read it and confirmed it is clinically sound.

We put this on every page rather than in a footnote, because the honest version of this information is only useful if you actually see it.

Why we are explicit about this

"Medically reviewed by" has become close to decorative in online health content. It appears on pages where the review was cursory, where the named clinician reviewed an earlier version, where the label was applied across a whole site rather than page by page, or where no meaningful review took place at all.

The effect is that readers cannot tell the difference between a page a clinician genuinely scrutinised and a page that simply displays a badge. That erosion harms everyone, including publishers who do review properly.

We would rather say clearly what we have and have not done. If that makes this site look less authoritative than a competitor displaying an unearned badge, that is a trade-off we accept.

What each status means

Source verified

Checked against the cited public sources by the editorial team. Claims trace to a source in our registry, quoted or paraphrased accurately, with links confirmed to resolve. Not reviewed by a clinician. This is the status of all current content.

Awaiting medical review

Source verified and queued for clinical review that has been arranged but not yet completed. Used only when a specific review is genuinely scheduled.

Medically reviewed

Reserved for pages a named, credentialled, licensed clinician has genuinely reviewed. Not currently applied to any page on this site. If it ever appears, it will name the reviewer, their credentials, and the date of that specific review.

What a genuine review would involve

If we introduce clinical review, it will meet these conditions:

  • Named reviewers with verifiable credentials, current licensure, and relevant experience.
  • Page-level review. No site-wide badges. A reviewer signs off on specific content they read.
  • Dated to the version reviewed. Substantive changes after review invalidate the label until re-reviewed.
  • Authority to require changes or to block publication. A reviewer who cannot say no is not a reviewer.
  • Declared conflicts of interest, published alongside the credentials.
  • Independence from advertising. No commercial input into clinical review.

Until every one of those conditions is met for a given page, that page will not carry a medical review label.

Review would not make this medical advice

Worth stating clearly, because it is a common misunderstanding.

Even a page reviewed by a clinician would remain general education. A reviewer confirms that content is accurate and appropriately framed for a general audience. They cannot account for your conditions, your other medicines, your history, or your circumstances, because they have never met you.

Medical advice requires a clinician who knows your situation. That is your prescriber and your pharmacist, and no website changes that.

What “awaiting medical review” means on live pages

Until a credentialed reviewer completes and documents approval, Hydroxyzine.org pages display that they are editorially reviewed and source-checked while awaiting licensed medical review. That banner is intentional. It prevents the site from implying clinical endorsement that has not occurred. When a real reviewer later approves a page, the status, date, and public credential summary can be shown with an expiration schedule.