Editorial responsibility: who is accountable?
Public educational content is attributed to Allograft.ca as an organization. The current production repository does not contain a verified individual medical author or reviewer profile that can be responsibly displayed. We therefore do not fabricate a physician name, academic credential, specialty, or “medically reviewed by” badge. When a real qualified reviewer is formally documented, their name, role, credentials, scope of review, and review date can be added transparently.
How sources are selected
For definitions and regulatory concepts, we prioritize authoritative public institutions such as the National Cancer Institute, National Library of Medicine resources, Health Canada, FDA, and other appropriate regulators. For clinical and scientific background, we prefer peer-reviewed literature, systematic reviews, established tissue-bank education, and primary research when it directly supports a statement. For named commercial products, official manufacturer documentation is used to establish what the manufacturer actually says about the product.
We do not add a citation merely because it contains a target keyword. A source must support the specific nearby statement.
General scientific evidence vs product-specific evidence
General research about extracellular matrix, decellularization, dermal scaffolds, or ADM is treated as scientific background. It is not automatically evidence for ADM Plus, AlloDerm, or another named product. Product-specific properties such as composition, processing, sterility, storage, indications, contraindications, regulatory status, and clinical outcomes must be supported by controlled documentation for that exact product and market.
We do not publish unverified claims such as “FDA approved,” “Health Canada approved,” “no rejection,” “zero complications,” “best product,” or guaranteed regeneration unless an exact, current source supports the exact statement and context.
Review date and revision process
High-value educational pages display a last-reviewed date. Reviews check factual accuracy, source availability, broken references, terminology, medical-claim boundaries, and whether regulatory wording remains current. A content update can occur when authoritative guidance changes, a source is withdrawn, a new product-specific document is approved for publication, or a material error is identified.
Correction policy
If a factual or citation error is reported, it should be verified against the strongest available source and corrected promptly. Material corrections should be documented in the project changelog. Requests can be sent through the contact page. Patient-identifying information must never be submitted through public forms.
Conflict-of-interest policy
Commercial relationships, manufacturer relationships, distribution arrangements, research support, or other relevant interests should be disclosed when they materially affect a page. We do not imply affiliation with third-party brands without documentation. The independent AlloDerm explainer, for example, contains an explicit non-affiliation disclosure.
Why the content exists
The purpose is to help professional and general readers understand terminology and evidence boundaries—not to replace clinical judgment, prescribing information, Instructions for Use, or local regulation. Search visibility is a secondary outcome; content should remain useful even if a search engine did not exist.