How we research, review, and correct content

What we publish

We publish Canadian clinic-oriented explanations about custom orthotics, laboratory workflow, footwear fit, hosiery, device adjustment, aftercare, documentation, and digital ordering. Topics should answer a real practitioner or public education need and connect to the site’s established field. We do not publish unrelated trends, copied news summaries, invented product availability, or pages made mainly to target a keyword.

How topics are planned

Each guide starts with a content brief defining its audience, locale, intent, unique contribution, evidence plan, concrete case, intended conclusion, limitations, responsible organization, image provenance, disclosure needs, and useful internal destinations. Public categories are consolidated until each can support several substantive guides; empty tags and one-item archives are not exposed merely to enlarge the site.

Evidence and source selection

Material claims should use primary or authoritative sources where available, such as regulators, professional organizations, government guidance, standards owners, or current program documents. A source is recorded with its URL and verification date. We distinguish what the source states from our synthesis and avoid extending a general statement into an individual recommendation. Changeable requirements are checked again before approval.

Original contribution

A qualifying guide must add more than a summary. It includes Canadian context, a worked scenario or failure case, an editorial interpretation, audience fit, tradeoffs, limitations, a practical next action, and purposeful internal links. Diagrams created for this project explain concepts and do not pretend to be patient records, product tests, clinical imaging, or official manufacturer material.

Authorship and health review

Orthotic Energy Editorial Team is the responsible publishing organization for current drafts; that label is not a personal clinical credential. Health content remains excluded from indexing until a qualified reviewer’s real name, credential, jurisdiction, verification route, scope, review date, next-review date, and approval are recorded for that article. Structured data does not name a reviewer before this gate passes.

AI and automation

Automated tools may assist research organization, drafting, coding, illustration, inventories, or quality checks. They do not replace source verification, Canadian localization, originality review, rights review, professional health review, or accountable human approval. Generated text and diagrams must be checked for unsupported claims, misleading realism, repeated language, broken links, and inconsistency with the visible page.

Dates and updates

The published date describes the article’s actual publication record; the modified date changes only after a substantive correction or improvement. A formatting or metadata-only change does not justify a freshness signal. Review records include a next-review date or trigger so that insurance, professional standards, technology, product, and workflow claims can be revisited when conditions change.

Corrections

Send the affected URL, disputed statement, supporting evidence, and your contact details to [email protected]. Reports are assessed against the source and scope of the page. A verified material error may be corrected, clarified, temporarily restricted, or removed; the modification date and review record are updated when appropriate. We do not silently change a clinical conclusion merely to preserve traffic.

Commercial independence and conflicts

Product or service relationships do not purchase a conclusion, source choice, rating, reviewer approval, or removal of a limitation. Sponsored or affiliate material, if introduced, must be labelled and separated from clinical review. A contributor or reviewer should disclose a relationship that could reasonably affect interpretation, and unresolved material conflicts prevent approval.