Fact-Checking Policy

What gets fact-checked

• Citations to peer-reviewed studies — author, year, journal, PMID, sample size, and primary findings are verified against PubMed before publication.
• Equipment specifications — every published spec (price, weight, dimensions, ultrasonic frequency, powder compatibility) traces to manufacturer documentation, regulatory filing, or distributor catalogue.
• Clinical claims — statements about safety, efficacy, contraindications, or recommended protocols require either published evidence or explicit framing as "manufacturer-stated."
• Pricing data — distributor-survey timestamps; ranges rather than spot prices when meaningful variation exists.
• Regulatory status — CE marking, FDA clearance, MDR compliance year are verified against accessible registries or manufacturer disclosure.

Verification process

Each fact-check follows a consistent process: identify the claim, locate the primary source, confirm the source supports the specific wording in the article, and record the verification date. Citations link to public sources where possible (PubMed for studies, manufacturer URLs for specs). If a primary source is paywalled, we cite it but mark accessibility transparently.

For numeric data — survival rates, biofilm reduction percentages, frequency ranges — we check the original paper's tables and figures, not just the abstract. Abstracts sometimes round or summarize in ways that obscure clinically relevant detail.

The "manufacturer-stated" framing

Manufacturer claims about their own products are presented honestly as manufacturer-stated, not as independently verified clinical fact. If EMS publishes that the AIRFLOW Prophylaxis Master removes biofilm at a certain rate, that is reported as the manufacturer's claim. If an independent peer-reviewed study confirms the rate, the article cites the study and treats it as verified.

What we will not publish

• Specifications we cannot trace to a public source (we use "Not publicly disclosed" instead).
• Prices we cannot verify with at least one distributor (we use "Pricing not verified" or omit the page until verified).
• Clinical recommendations that lack at least one peer-reviewed supporting study.
• Citations to studies whose author, journal, or year cannot be confirmed via PubMed.
• Estimates dressed up as facts ("approximately 30%" without a source).

Corrections process

When a factual error is identified — by a reader, by an internal review, or by a manufacturer responding to coverage — the article is corrected promptly. Material corrections (those that change a clinical recommendation, a regulatory claim, or a price by more than a small range) are flagged in a correction notice at the bottom of the article, with the date of correction and the nature of the change. Minor corrections (typos, link fixes) are made silently.

Common pitfalls we work to avoid

• Citation drift: a claim attributed to a paper that the paper does not actually make. Mitigated by checking source text against article wording.
• Outdated specs: manufacturer revisions that quietly change a published spec. Mitigated by quarterly review of equipment-page citations.
• Marketing-as-evidence: manufacturer marketing claims being treated as if they were peer-reviewed findings. Mitigated by the "manufacturer-stated" framing rule.
• Confirmation bias: only citing studies that support a preferred conclusion. Mitigated by deliberate counter-evidence review on contested topics.

How to flag a possible error

If you find a factual error in any article on Preventio Hub, please reach us through the contact form. Include the article URL, the specific claim you believe is incorrect, and where possible a primary source supporting the correction. We respond to fact-check requests within 7 business days.

Last updated: May 10, 2026