Medically reviewed by: how to run a clinical review program for health content

A “Medically reviewed by” line has become a standard feature of health content. Patients see it as a promise that a qualified clinician checked what they are reading. Search engines read it as a signal about who stands behind the page. A practice that adds the line without a process behind it ends up making a claim it cannot prove, on exactly the kind of page where accuracy matters most.

Our guide to running a medical practice blog covers what to write about, where information ends and advice begins, and the basic rules for bylines. This guide picks up where that one stops. It covers how to run the review itself: who should review what, what to record, when the date on the page should change, how to mark it up, and what Google’s own rater guidelines say about the people behind health content. For how reviewed pages relate to Google AI Overviews and AI Mode, see our AI Overviews guide for practices. When a page draws on federal patient education, our guide to using CDC and other government health materials covers attribution, endorsement limits and keeping copies current. For how AI assistants find and cite reviewed pages, see our AI search visibility guide.

What the rater guidelines say about health content

Google publishes the guidelines its search quality raters use to judge pages. The current General Guidelines are dated September 11, 2025. They are not a ranking manual. Google’s overview of the program states that no single rating or single rater directly impacts how a given page or site ranks, and the guidelines themselves say ratings alone will not directly affect how a page appears in Google Search. What they do show is what Google is trying to measure, and for health pages they are specific.

Section 2.5.2 tells raters that every page should make clear who is responsible for the website and who created the content on the page. Section 3.4 defines E-E-A-T as experience, expertise, authoritativeness and trust, and says: “Trust is the most important member of the E-E-A-T family because untrustworthy pages have low E-E-A-T no matter how Experienced, Expert, or Authoritative they may seem.”

Section 3.4.1 is the one most relevant to a review program. It says that if the purpose of a page on a clear YMYL topic is to give information or offer advice, “a high level of expertise may be required for the page to be trustworthy.” It also says pages that share first-hand life experience can have high E-E-A-T as long as the content is trustworthy, safe and consistent with well-established expert consensus. The examples it gives for health are telling. Safe, non-medical tips from someone who has lived through a condition count as valuable experience. Which sleep medications are safe during pregnancy, or the treatment options for liver cancer and the life expectancy under each, are listed as information or advice best left to experts.

Section 4.5.3 covers the other side. It tells raters to give the lowest rating to pages with “deliberately inaccurate or misleading information about the website or content creators to make the website appear trustworthy.” A reviewer line that names someone who never reviewed the page fits that description.

What Google says to site owners

Google’s page on creating helpful content turns the same ideas into questions for publishers. It suggests looking at content in terms of who created it, how it was created and why. On the who side, it asks whether it is self-evident who authored the content, whether pages carry a byline where one might be expected, and whether bylines lead to more information about the author. It also asks whether content is “written or reviewed by an expert or enthusiast who demonstrably knows the topic well.” For topics that could significantly affect people’s health, it says the content must be highly accurate and consistent with established expert consensus.

Two practical points follow. A review line does more when it links to a real page about the reviewer. And “demonstrably” means a reader should be able to see why this reviewer fits this topic, not just that the reviewer has a degree. Our guide to physician bio pages and board certified claims covers how to write that page so each credential can be checked.

The federal rule behind the byline

Section 5 of the FTC Act declares unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce unlawful. A practice blog exists to bring in patients, and a statement that a named clinician reviewed it is a factual claim. If it is not true, it can mislead.

When the reviewer is presented as an expert and the content promotes a product or service, the FTC Endorsement Guides add detail. Under 16 CFR 255.0, an expert is someone who, through experience, study or training, has knowledge of a subject superior to what ordinary individuals generally acquire. Under 16 CFR 255.3, when an ad represents that the endorser is an expert, the endorser’s qualifications must in fact give them that expertise, and the endorsement must be supported by an actual exercise of it. The rule’s own example is a hearing aid endorser described only as a doctor, which likely implies expertise in hearing.

16 CFR 255.1 adds a time element that matters for health content. An advertiser may use an expert’s endorsement only so long as it has good reason to believe the expert continues to hold the views presented, and it can meet that duty by securing the expert’s views at reasonable intervals. New information and material changes in the product are among the factors that decide what is reasonable. For a review program, that means a review is not permanent. When the evidence or the service changes, or the reviewer leaves, the line needs another look.

Who should review what

The simplest test is the one in 16 CFR 255.3: does this person’s training and experience give them the expertise the line implies for this particular topic? A few working rules follow from it.

• Match the license to the topic. A dentist reviewing a post on gum disease is a natural fit. The same dentist reviewing a post on sleep medication is a different claim, even if the post appears on a dental site.
• Match the specialty when the topic is specialized. A general practitioner can review a general explainer. A post on a procedure that a specialist performs reads better, and is easier to defend, when a clinician in that specialty reviewed it.
• Keep non-clinical reviews honest. A billing manager can check a post about insurance and a lawyer can check a post about privacy rights. Say that plainly (“Reviewed for billing accuracy by”) instead of putting their name under a medical review label.
• Do not borrow names. A reviewer must be a real person who agreed to review this post and did. A name taken from a colleague, a former employee or a made-up profile is the deception the rater guidelines and the FTC rules describe.

Lived experience has a place too. Section 3.4.1 of the rater guidelines treats first-hand experience as valuable on its own terms. A patient story, used with the patient’s written authorization, can sit alongside a clinician’s review, but it does not replace one for anything that reads as medical information or advice. Our guide to patient testimonials and before and after photos covers the authorization and disclosure side.

A review workflow that leaves a record

The value of a review program comes from the record it leaves. If a patient, a licensing board or a regulator ever asks who checked a page and when, you should be able to answer in a few minutes.

1. Write a short brief before drafting. Note the topic, the intended reader and the sources the post will rely on. Choose a reviewer whose expertise fits before the draft starts.
2. Send the reviewer the exact draft. The reviewer should see the full text that will publish, including headings, the FAQ and any image captions, not a summary.
3. Ask for specific checks. Accuracy of every clinical statement, whether anything reads as personal advice, whether the sources support each claim, and whether anything is out of date.
4. Record the result. Keep the reviewer’s name, credential, the date, the version reviewed and the changes made. A dated copy of the approved text is enough.
5. Publish only the reviewed version. Any later edit to clinical content goes back to the reviewer before it goes live. Typo fixes and layout changes do not need a new review, but note them.
6. Set a re-review date. Pick a review cycle for each post based on how fast its topic changes, and put the date in your calendar.

If a draft was produced with AI help, the same steps apply, and the review matters more. Our guide to AI generated content in healthcare marketing covers what Google and the FTC say about automated content.

When the date on the page should change

Dates are where many review programs go wrong. A “Last reviewed” date that moves forward every month, with nothing checked, is a false statement on the page.

Google’s byline dates page tells site owners to add a user-visible date, feature it prominently and label it with text such as “Published” or “Last updated”. It says dates must describe the publication or update date of the page, not events described on it, and that the date in structured data should match the date shown to readers. Google’s helpful content page asks site owners directly: “Are you changing the date of pages to make them seem fresh when the content has not substantially changed?”

A workable rule for a practice is to keep two dates and treat them differently.

• Published date. Set once, when the post first goes live. It does not change.
• Last reviewed date. Changes only when the named reviewer actually reviews the post again. If the review leads to edits, update the modified date as well.

Illustration: a post on seasonal allergy care was published in March and reviewed by a physician on the team. In October, the physician reads it again, updates one section where guidance has changed and approves it. The page now shows the original published date, a new last reviewed date with the physician’s name, and the change is noted in the practice’s review record. If nobody had reviewed it in October, the dates would stay as they were.

Marking up reviewers and authors

Structured data should describe what the page already shows. It should never add a reviewer or a credential that a reader cannot see.

Google’s Article structured data page recommends including every author shown on the page in the markup, listing each author in a separate author field, and using the type and url (or sameAs) properties so Google can tell who the author is. It says to put only the author’s name in author.name, with no job title or honorific prefix or suffix, since separate properties exist for those. For an internal profile page, it recommends ProfilePage markup on that page.

schema.org also defines two properties for review. reviewedBy describes people or organizations that have reviewed the content of a web page for accuracy and/or completeness, and lastReviewed is the date on which the content was last reviewed. Both apply to the WebPage type. Google’s Article documentation does not list them among the properties it uses, so treat them as an accurate description of the page, not a search feature. Our guide to schema markup for medical practice websites covers the rest of the markup a practice site needs.

Common mistakes

• One reviewer for every topic. A single name under every post, across specialties the person does not practice, invites the question 255.3 asks.
• A review line on a post nobody reviewed. Templates that add the line automatically to every post make it untrue on the ones that were not checked.
• Reviewers who have left. When a clinician leaves the practice, their name stays on old posts unless someone removes it or has the post reviewed again.
• Credentials that do not match the bio. The credential in the review line should match the reviewer’s bio page exactly.
• Dates moved for freshness. A new date with no new review is the practice Google’s helpful content page asks site owners about.

How we help

When we build or run content for a practice, every clinical post is reviewed by a clinician the practice names before it publishes. We set up the review record, show published and last reviewed dates in the design, mark up authors and reviewers to match the page, and flag posts that are due for review. We do not add a reviewer line to a post that has not been reviewed, and we do not promise rankings. See our healthcare SEO service for how this fits into the rest of the work, or the healthcare marketing rules guide for related topics.

Sources

• Google: Search Quality Rater Guidelines, General Guidelines (September 11, 2025)
• Google: Search Quality Rater Guidelines, An Overview (November 2023)
• Google Search Central: Creating helpful, reliable, people-first content
• Google Search Central: Influence your byline dates in Google Search
• Google Search Central: Article structured data
• schema.org: reviewedBy
• schema.org: lastReviewed
• 15 U.S.C. 45: Unfair methods of competition unlawful (FTC Act Section 5)
• 16 CFR 255.0: Purpose and definitions
• 16 CFR 255.1: General considerations
• 16 CFR 255.3: Expert endorsements

More in Local SEO and reviews for practices