SECTION 01
Identify the exact content
Include the page title or URL, the heading and the specific statement that may be inaccurate. Quote only the minimum wording needed and note the date the page was viewed.
Explain whether the issue concerns medical guidance, clinician identity, facility status, a broken link, translation, outdated logistics or another factual point. A general disagreement is harder to review than a precise claim.
SECTION 02
Provide evidence that can be checked
Link to current official, government, professional or other primary material when available and state what it supports. For medical topics, identify the authoritative guideline or source and its publication date.
Do not submit private clinical files, patient photographs, identity documents or confidential account information through a public correction route. Ask for a secure channel if sensitive evidence is genuinely necessary.
- Prefer current primary sources over reposts.
- Explain conflicts between sources rather than hiding them.
- Remove unrelated personal data from supporting material.
SECTION 03
Understand the review boundary
A correction request supports editorial review; it is not a medical consultation, complaint adjudication or emergency service. The reviewer may seek clarification, update wording, add context, record an update date or decline a change when evidence does not support it.
Credential or facility claims should be checked with the relevant primary source and the subject may be invited to clarify. Unverified allegations should not be republished as facts.
SECTION 04
Use the right route for urgent or personal care
A content correction route cannot assess symptoms or direct emergency treatment. Contact the treating team and a qualified local clinician for personal postoperative concerns.
For breathing difficulty, chest pain, collapse, sudden vision change, uncontrolled bleeding or other severe rapidly worsening symptoms, contact local emergency services immediately.