Medical Review Policy

Medical Review Policy

Last Updated: January 10, 2026
Next Scheduled Review: April 10, 2026

Know more About Wearable Wellness Guide (medical governance)
Table Of Contents
  1. Medical Review Policy

Policy Purpose and Scope

This Medical Review Policy defines how Wearable Wellness Guide ensures the clinical accuracy, safety appropriateness, and medical integrity of all health-related content published on this site.

Medical review is not a regulatory approval process. Rather, it is an editorial quality control mechanism designed to verify that:

  • Health claims align with peer-reviewed evidence and clinical guidelines
  • Physiological explanations are medically accurate
  • Device accuracy claims are substantiated and limitations disclosed
  • Safety guidance reflects current medical standards
  • Content appropriately distinguishes between wellness information and medical advice

This policy applies to all content categories including device reviews, comparison guides, educational articles, and methodology documentation.

What Requires Medical Review

Mandatory Medical Review

All content undergoes medical review before publication if it contains:

Health Claims and Physiological Explanations

  • Descriptions of how the body functions (cardiovascular, respiratory, metabolic systems)
  • Explanations of health metrics (heart rate variability, SpO₂, sleep stages)
  • Statements about normal vs. abnormal physiological ranges
  • Interpretations of measurement data in clinical context

Device Accuracy and Clinical Validity

  • Claims about measurement precision or reliability
  • Comparisons to medical-grade equipment
  • Statements about clinical relevance or diagnostic utility
  • Assertions about FDA clearance or regulatory classification
  • Limitations of consumer devices vs. medical devices

Safety Guidance and Warning Thresholds

  • Numeric thresholds requiring medical attention (e.g., heart rate >180 bpm)
  • Symptom checklists for emergency care
  • Contraindications or risk warnings for device use
  • Guidance on when devices should not replace clinical evaluation

Condition-Specific Content

  • References to diagnosed medical conditions (atrial fibrillation, sleep apnea, diabetes)
  • Discussions of disease management or monitoring
  • Content targeting users with specific health conditions
  • Claims about device utility for clinical populations

Clinical Comparisons and Standards

  • References to medical practice guidelines
  • Citations of clinical research studies
  • Comparisons to clinical accuracy benchmarks
  • Statements about medical appropriateness

Content Exempt from Full Medical Review

The following content types do not require full medical review but are reviewed for factual accuracy:

  • Product specifications (battery life, water resistance, price)
  • User interface descriptions
  • Software feature lists (unless health-related)
  • General editorial content about technology trends
  • Administrative pages (privacy policy, terms of service)

However, even exempt content is reviewed if it makes incidental health claims or references medical concepts.

Primary Medical Reviewer

Reviewer Identification

Dr. Rishav Das, M.B.B.S.
 Medical Reviewer & Health Informatics Specialist
Wearable Wellness Guide

Dr. Das serves as the sole lead medical reviewer for all content published on Wearable Wellness Guide. He holds final editorial authority on all medical claims, safety guidance, and clinical accuracy determinations.

Credentials and Qualifications

Medical Education:

  • M.B.B.S. (Bachelor of Medicine, Bachelor of Surgery), Grant Government Medical College, Mumbai (2024)

Specialized Training:

  • Post-Graduate Certificate in Health Informatics, Columbia University (2025)
  • Specialization in Immunology, Imperial College London (2025)
  • Post-Graduate Diploma in Neuroscience, Johns Hopkins University (2025)

Clinical Experience:

  • Former Medical Officer, Sir J.J. Group of Hospitals, Mumbai (2024–2025)

Current Role:

  • AI Tutor, Stanford Lab of Medicine

Professional Licensure:

Academic Identifier:

Scope of Review Authority

Dr. Das’s medical review authority encompasses:

Testing Methodology Development

  • Designs evidence-based testing protocols for each device category
  • Determines appropriate reference standards and comparison equipment
  • Establishes statistically valid sample sizes and testing conditions
  • Defines acceptable error margins based on clinical guidelines

Dataset Integrity Verification

  • Evaluates sensor accuracy and measurement reliability
  • Assesses clinical relevance of collected data
  • Validates statistical analyses and error calculations
  • Reviews data presentation for accuracy and clarity

Clinical Claim Alignment

  • Verifies device claims against peer-reviewed research
  • Compares manufacturer assertions to clinical practice guidelines
  • Identifies discrepancies between marketing claims and evidence
  • Ensures claims are appropriately qualified and contextualized

Safety Assessment

  • Identifies potential risks and contraindications
  • Establishes appropriate use cases and user populations
  • Determines when devices should not substitute for medical evaluation
  • Reviews emergency guidance and warning thresholds

Content Medical Review

  • Verifies accuracy of all physiological explanations
  • Ensures appropriate use of medical terminology
  • Reviews citations and evidence quality
  • Confirms safety disclaimers are present and appropriate

Explicit Scope Limitations

Dr. Das’s review authority does not extend to:

  • Medical diagnosis or disease interpretation: Content does not diagnose conditions or interpret individual user data
  • Clinical treatment recommendations: Content does not prescribe therapies or recommend medical interventions
  • FDA regulatory determinations: Content reports FDA clearances but does not make regulatory classifications
  • Clinical decision-making: Content does not guide specific medical decisions for individual patients
  • Substitution for healthcare providers: Content cannot replace personalized medical consultation

When content approaches these boundaries, it is either revised to maintain appropriate scope or flagged for consultation with relevant clinical specialists.

Review Timeline Commitments

New Content:

  • Initial medical review completed within 5 business days of content submission
  • Revision requests returned to authors within 2 business days
  • Final approval or rejection issued within 10 business days of initial submission

Content Updates:

  • Minor factual corrections reviewed within 24 hours
  • Firmware update re-reviews completed within 7 business days
  • New research integration completed within 14 business days

Emergency Safety Reviews:

  • FDA safety alerts or device recalls reviewed immediately (same business day)
  • Critical corrections prioritized over new content reviews

These timelines assume normal operating conditions. Delays are documented and communicated to the editorial team.

Independent Peer Review

Current Status

As of January 2026, Wearable Wellness Guide does not currently engage external peer reviewers. All medical review is conducted by Dr. Rishav Das.

An advisory board structure is being developed to provide quarterly methodology oversight. Advisory board members will not participate in day-to-day editorial decisions or content approval but will review testing protocols, data analysis methods, and overall clinical approach on a consultative basis.

When Peer Review Will Be Required

Once a formal peer review process is established, independent external review will be required for:

Novel Testing Methodologies

  • First-time testing protocols for new device categories
  • Innovative accuracy benchmarking approaches
  • Experimental data collection methods
  • Validation studies requiring methodological scrutiny

Complex Statistical Analyses

  • Advanced statistical modeling or regression analyses
  • Meta-analyses of device accuracy across multiple studies
  • Subgroup analyses requiring specialized biostatistical expertise
  • Any statistical claim that could be materially challenged

Clinical Specialty Content

  • Content requiring expertise beyond Dr. Das’s training (e.g., cardiology-specific guidance, endocrinology for diabetes devices)
  • Condition-specific device recommendations for diagnosed populations
  • Content targeting clinical audiences (physicians, nurses, medical students)
  • Reviews of FDA-cleared medical devices requiring specialist input

High-Risk Safety Guidance

  • Emergency care thresholds for life-threatening conditions
  • Contraindications for vulnerable populations (pregnancy, pediatrics, elderly)
  • Device warnings for users with implanted medical devices
  • Any safety guidance where error could result in serious harm

Controversial or Contested Claims

  • Devices making claims disputed in medical literature
  • Content addressing areas without scientific consensus
  • Reviews where manufacturer claims conflict with independent research
  • Topics subject to ongoing regulatory debate

Peer Reviewer Selection Criteria

When external peer reviewers are engaged, they must meet the following requirements:

Independence:

  • No financial relationship with device manufacturers reviewed
  • No compensation contingent on review outcomes
  • No affiliation with competing review platforms
  • Disclosure of all potential conflicts of interest

Expertise:

  • Relevant advanced degree (M.D., D.O., Ph.D. in related field)
  • Active practice or research in relevant clinical or technical domain
  • Publication record in peer-reviewed journals (where applicable)
  • Recognition as subject matter expert by professional community

Commitment to Transparency:

  • Willingness to have credentials publicly disclosed
  • Agreement to document review scope and limitations
  • Acceptance of defined review timelines
  • Openness to constructive editorial dialogue

Conflict of Interest Screening:

  • Annual disclosure of financial relationships
  • Recusal from reviews where conflicts exist
  • No manufacturer consulting within 12 months
  • No stock ownership in reviewed brands

Term Limits and Rotation:

  • Maximum 3-year term to ensure fresh perspectives
  • Annual performance review
  • Rotation of reviewers across content categories to prevent bias
  • Exit interviews to improve peer review process

Types of Peer Reviewers

Methodological Reviewers:

  • Biostatisticians for statistical analyses
  • Epidemiologists for population health claims
  • Biomedical engineers for sensor technology evaluation
  • Health informaticists for data accuracy assessment

Clinical Reviewers:

  • Cardiologists for heart rate and rhythm monitoring content
  • Pulmonologists or sleep medicine specialists for respiratory and sleep devices
  • Endocrinologists for metabolic and diabetes management devices
  • Sports medicine physicians for fitness tracker content
  • Dermatologists for skin-contact device safety

Technical Reviewers:

  • Electrical engineers for sensor hardware evaluation
  • Data scientists for algorithm accuracy assessment
  • Human factors specialists for usability and safety
  • Regulatory affairs professionals for FDA compliance review

Medical Review Process

Initial Review Workflow

Step 1: Content Submission

  • Author submits draft content to editorial team
  • Content is tagged by category (review, guide, methodology, educational)
  • Medical review flag is applied to all health-related content

Step 2: Primary Medical Review Assignment

  • Content forwarded to Dr. Rishav Das
  • Review scope documented (full review vs. targeted review)
  • Expected completion date communicated

Step 3: Clinical Accuracy Verification

  • All health claims cross-referenced against peer-reviewed literature
  • Physiological explanations verified against medical textbooks and guidelines
  • Manufacturer device claims compared to FDA clearances and validation studies
  • Statistical claims reviewed for methodological soundness

Step 4: Safety Guidance Validation

  • Emergency thresholds checked against clinical practice guidelines
  • Contraindications verified against manufacturer documentation and medical literature
  • Warning language assessed for clarity and appropriateness
  • Disclaimers reviewed for legal and medical adequacy

Step 5: Scope Appropriateness Check

  • Content reviewed to ensure it stays within wellness information boundaries
  • Any language approaching diagnosis or treatment flagged for revision
  • Medical terminology checked for accuracy and accessibility
  • Tone and framing assessed for appropriate caution

Step 6: Peer Review Trigger Assessment

  • Content evaluated against peer review criteria (see “When Peer Review Will Be Required”)
  • If peer review required, external reviewer assigned
  • If peer review not required, content proceeds to final review

Step 7: Revisions and Re-Review

  • Reviewer provides documented feedback to author
  • Specific claims requiring revision are identified
  • Author revises content and resubmits
  • Reviewer confirms revisions address concerns
  • Process iterates until content meets medical accuracy standards

Step 8: Final Approval or Rejection

  • Content approved for publication with reviewer sign-off and date
  • Content rejected if accuracy cannot be achieved within scope
  • Rejected content returned to author with explanation
  • Alternative approaches suggested where feasible

Periodic Review Process

Annual Comprehensive Review:

  • All published content reviewed at least once per year
  • Priority given to high-traffic pages and time-sensitive topics
  • Outdated references updated
  • New research integrated where relevant
  • Safety guidance verified against current standards

Quarterly High-Traffic Page Review:

  • Top 25% of pages by traffic reviewed every three months
  • Ensures most-read content remains accurate
  • Rapid integration of emerging evidence
  • User feedback reviewed and addressed

Event-Triggered Reviews:

  • New Research Publication: Content updated within 30 days if significant study published
  • FDA Safety Alerts: Immediate review and update if device recall or warning issued
  • Firmware Updates: Re-testing and review within 7-14 days if update affects health tracking
  • User-Reported Errors: Expedited review within 48 hours if reader identifies inaccuracy

Review Documentation

All reviews are documented with the following information:

Reviewer Identification:

  • Reviewer name and credentials
  • Review date
  • Review type (initial, periodic, event-triggered)

Content Reviewed:

  • Page title and URL
  • Specific claims reviewed
  • Sources consulted

Changes Requested:

  • Original language flagged for revision
  • Specific inaccuracies identified
  • Recommended corrections
  • Justification with supporting citations

Changes Implemented:

  • Revised language
  • New citations added
  • Safety warnings strengthened
  • Limitations clarified

Limitations Acknowledged:

  • Areas where evidence is limited or conflicting
  • Scope boundaries clearly stated
  • Uncertainties disclosed
  • Need for ongoing monitoring noted

Next Review Date:

  • Scheduled date for next periodic review
  • Conditions that would trigger earlier review
  • Monitoring plan for emerging evidence

Documentation is retained for a minimum of 3 years and made available upon request for audit or transparency purposes.

Know more about our Standard testing protocol v2.0 as well

Conflict Resolution

When Reviewers Disagree

In cases where peer reviewers provide conflicting assessments, the following process applies:

Step 1: Structured Dialogue

  • Both reviewers receive each other’s comments (anonymized if requested)
  • Each reviewer asked to clarify reasoning and cite supporting evidence
  • Editorial team facilitates discussion
  • Attempt to reach consensus through evidence review

Step 2: Evidence Hierarchy Application

  • Higher-quality evidence (systematic reviews, RCTs) prioritized over lower-quality evidence (case reports, expert opinion)
  • More recent evidence considered when conflicting with older studies
  • Clinical guidelines from authoritative organizations (AHA, ADA, ATS) given weight
  • Conservative approach favored when evidence is genuinely equivocal

Step 3: Advisory Board Escalation

  • If consensus cannot be reached, issue escalated to advisory board
  • Advisory board reviews evidence and provides recommendation
  • Advisory board does not have final decision authority but provides expert input

Advisory Board Escalation Criteria:

  • Disagreement involves high-stakes safety guidance
  • Evidence is genuinely ambiguous or contested
  • Reviewers hold entrenched positions after dialogue
  • Issue has significant implications for content credibility

Step 4: Final Decision Authority

  • Dr. Rishav Das holds final editorial authority on all medical content
  • Final decision documented with justification
  • Dissenting opinions noted in review documentation
  • Content includes appropriate caveats and limitations

Step 5: Post-Decision Transparency

  • When significant disagreement occurred, content includes language such as: “This topic involves evolving research and some clinical debate. Our recommendation is based on [specific evidence], though alternative perspectives exist.”
  • Limitations section expanded to acknowledge uncertainty
  • Content monitored closely for new evidence that might shift recommendation

Documentation of Dissenting Opinions

When reviewers disagree and final decision is made:

  • Dissenting reviewer’s concerns documented in review log
  • Reasoning for final decision recorded
  • Alternative interpretation noted for future reference
  • If new evidence emerges supporting dissenting view, content flagged for priority re-review

This ensures institutional memory and demonstrates good-faith engagement with conflicting evidence.

Review Quality Assurance

Annual Review Completeness Audit

Each January, Wearable Wellness Guide conducts an internal audit of the previous year’s medical review process:

Audit Scope:

  • All content published in prior calendar year
  • All periodic reviews conducted
  • All event-triggered reviews
  • All correction and update processes

Audit Questions:

  • Was every piece of health-related content medically reviewed before publication?
  • Were review timelines met?
  • Were revisions adequately documented?
  • Were periodic reviews completed as scheduled?
  • Were event-triggered reviews conducted appropriately?

Audit Findings:

  • Gaps or delays identified
  • Process improvements recommended
  • Training needs identified
  • Resource allocation assessed

Audit Documentation:

  • Summary report prepared by editorial team
  • Reviewed by Dr. Rishav Das
  • Recommendations implemented in following year
  • Results incorporated into next policy update

Spot-Checks of Published Content Accuracy

On a quarterly basis, a random sample of published content is selected for accuracy verification:

Sample Selection:

  • 10% of content published in prior quarter (minimum 5 pieces)
  • Stratified by content type (reviews, guides, educational)
  • Weighted toward high-traffic pages

Verification Process:

  • Each claim cross-checked against current literature
  • Citations reviewed for accuracy and relevance
  • Safety guidance verified against current guidelines
  • Outdated information flagged for update

Outcomes:

  • Errors corrected immediately
  • Patterns analyzed (e.g., specific topic areas with higher error rates)
  • Reviewer feedback provided
  • Process refinements implemented

Reader Feedback Integration

User-reported errors or concerns are treated as part of the quality assurance process:

Feedback Channels:

  • Contact form submissions
  • Email to corrections@wearablewellnessguide.com
  • Comments on articles (if commenting enabled)
  • Social media messages

Feedback Triage:

  • All medical accuracy concerns reviewed within 48 hours
  • Minor factual errors corrected within 24 hours
  • Complex issues requiring full medical review within 5 business days
  • User notified of correction or explanation

Feedback Tracking:

  • Log maintained of all user-reported issues
  • Patterns identified (e.g., confusing explanations, missing disclaimers)
  • High-frequency issues prioritized for content improvement
  • Feedback trends inform editorial planning

Continuous Improvement Process

Medical review quality is evaluated and improved through:

Quarterly Process Review:

  • Review team meets to discuss workflow efficiency
  • Bottlenecks identified and addressed
  • Tools and resources assessed
  • Training needs discussed

Annual Reviewer Performance Assessment:

  • Timeliness of reviews
  • Quality of feedback provided to authors
  • Accuracy of clinical assessments
  • Engagement with continuing education

Industry Best Practice Monitoring:

  • Ongoing review of medical editing standards (AMA Manual of Style, ICMJE guidelines)
  • Participation in health information quality organizations
  • Monitoring of peer publications’ review processes
  • Adoption of emerging best practices

Policy Updates:

  • This Medical Review Policy reviewed and updated annually
  • Changes documented with effective date
  • Major changes communicated to site users via About page update

Contact and Transparency

Questions about our medical review process, reviewer qualifications, or specific editorial decisions can be directed to:

Email: medical@wearablewellnessguide.com

We are committed to transparency in our review process. While specific reviewer comments on individual pieces are confidential, we are happy to explain our general approach, evidence standards, and decision-making framework.

For corrections or content concerns, please use our dedicated corrections process outlined in our Corrections and Updates Policy.

Policy Effective Date: January 10, 2026
Last Substantive Revision: January 10, 2026
Policy Owner: Dr. Rishav Das, M.B.B.S., Medical Reviewer
Next Scheduled Review: April 10, 2026

This Medical Review Policy is a living document and will be updated as our review process evolves, external peer review is formalized, and industry best practices develop. All substantive changes will be documented with effective dates and communicated to site users.

Search
Scroll to Top