Editorial standards

How we research, source, and review what we publish, and where our limits are.

How we research

We build our articles from published guidance, not opinion. Our main sources are national health services and health agencies (such as the NHS and NHS Inform), academic and clinical references, genetics resources, and the established charities in this field. When we make a claim that a reader might reasonably want to check, we link to the source.

How we source figures

Statistics come from primary sources where we can find them, not from other websites repeating a number. We prefer recent data and note where it comes from. If we cannot verify a figure against a credible source, we leave it out rather than guess. Restricted growth covers many conditions, and precise numbers are not always available, so we would rather say less than say something that is not supported.

How we write about people

We use person-first, respectful language, and we follow the terms the community uses (restricted growth, achondroplasia, little people). We do not use pity framing or language like "suffers from." A diagnosis is one part of a person's life, and our writing reflects that.

What we do not do

We do not diagnose, treat, or recommend a course of care for an individual. We do not accept payment to feature a clinic, product, or practitioner in our information articles. We do not invent author credentials or claim clinical review we did not have. Our articles carry a shared editorial byline because the work is a team effort built on cited sources, not the personal medical opinion of a named clinician.

Corrections

We get things wrong sometimes, and we would rather fix them than defend them. If you spot an error, an outdated figure, or a source that no longer supports a claim, tell us through the contact page and we will review it and update the article.

Updates

Health guidance changes over time. We revisit articles and note near the top of each page when it was last updated.