Methodology & citation log.

1. Editorial principles

• Evidence first. Every educational claim is anchored in a published clinical guideline or peer-reviewed source. Personal opinion, anecdote, and trend-driven claims are excluded from the educational body of work.
• Plain English. Clinical language is translated for adults preparing for or living with bariatric surgery, not for clinicians. Where simplification could distort meaning, we keep the precise term and define it.
• Scope honesty. Where the evidence is uncertain, weak, or evolving, we say so explicitly rather than overstate confidence.
• No clinical advice. Educational content sets context. It does not replace personalised guidance from your own bariatric team. Every page carries this disclaimer.
• No undisclosed affiliations. We are not affiliated with, endorsed by, certified by, or partnered with ASMBS, Obesity Canada, AACE, TOS, ISSN, BOMSS, the College of Registered Nurses of Alberta, or any other clinical, regulatory, professional, or governmental organisation. References to these organisations are factual citations of their publicly available work.
• Science and biology. Where physiology is sex-specific (for example, oestrogen-dependent bone loss, pregnancy and lactation considerations, post-menopausal protein needs), we describe it accurately on the basis of biological sex. Individuals are free to identify however they choose; our clinical descriptions remain grounded in biology.

2. Source hierarchy

When sources disagree, we follow this hierarchy:

1. Multi-society clinical practice guidelines — ASMBS, Obesity Canada, AACE/TOS/ASMBS/OMA/ASA peri-operative guideline, BOMSS
2. Single-society position statements and consensus papers — ISSN protein position; ASMBS topic statements
3. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses in peer-reviewed bariatric and metabolic journals
4. Primary peer-reviewed studies — only when guideline-level sources are silent or out-of-date
5. Government and regulator publications — Health Canada, FDA, MHRA, TGA, EMA for medication and device information

We do not use blog posts, vendor marketing material, social-media content, or non-peer-reviewed preprints as primary sources for clinical claims.

3. Our content process

1. Topic intake. A topic is added to our editorial backlog — usually because clients have asked a question repeatedly, because a guideline has been updated, or because we have identified an evidence gap on the site.
2. Source assembly. The editor identifies the relevant guideline(s) and peer-reviewed sources using the hierarchy above.
3. AI-assisted drafting. We use general-purpose AI tools to help summarise sources, draft plain-English copy, and surface structural options. The AI never selects the sources, never produces a final claim, and never replaces human judgement.
4. Human editorial review. Every draft is reviewed against the cited sources by a human editor for accuracy, scope honesty, and disclaimer placement.
5. Citation logging. Each public claim is entered in the citation log with the source, page or section reference, and the date the claim was last reviewed.
6. Publication. The page goes live with disclaimers, the standard Sources & limits footer, and a link to this methodology page.
7. Periodic review. Every page is reviewed at least annually, and immediately when a relevant guideline is updated.

4. AI disclosure

AI tools currently in our workflow include large-language-model assistants for drafting and reference-checking. We do not represent AI-generated text as the work of a human author; the editorial team is responsible for the final published content.

5. Human review and approval

Every public-facing page that contains a clinical or behavioural claim passes through a six-gate review before publication:

1. Intake gate — topic is in scope (bariatric, GLP-1, metabolic health, post-bariatric life)
2. Source gate — claims are anchored in guideline-level or peer-reviewed sources
3. Rights gate — no copyrighted text is copied; sources are paraphrased and linked
4. Safety gate — no diagnosis, prescription, dosing, or emergency triage content; correct disclaimers
5. Attribution gate — every claim has a citation log entry; no affiliation is implied
6. Human-approval gate — the editor signs off in writing before publication

6. The citation log

We publish a citation log spreadsheet that lists, for each claim made on the public site, the source it is anchored in, the section or page within that source, and the date the claim was last reviewed. The log is the single source of truth for what we have said publicly and where it came from.

The current version of the citation log is available on request — email editorial@purebariatric.com. A public link will be added to this page in a future update.

7. Corrections and updates

If you believe a claim on PureBariatric is inaccurate, out-of-date, or unsupported by its cited source, please tell us. Email editorial@purebariatric.com with the page URL and a brief description. We aim to respond within five business days. When we make a substantive correction, we update the “Last updated” date on the affected page and note material changes in the citation log.

8. Limits of our content

• We publish education, not medical advice. We do not diagnose, prescribe, or treat.
• Guidelines change. We aim to keep our content current, but you should always confirm with your own bariatric team before acting on anything you read here.
• We focus on the five recognised metabolic and bariatric procedures (LSG, RYGB, SADI-S, LAGB, BPD-DS). Procedures and devices outside this set are mentioned only when needed for context.
• Our content is in English. The PureBariatric mobile app is being made available in multiple languages; website content is published in English first.

9. Contact

Editorial questions, corrections, or citation log requests: editorial@purebariatric.com. Scope questions: /scope/. Privacy: /privacy/. Terms: /terms/.