Editorial standards

1. Our editorial mission

We aim to provide clear, accurate, evidence-based information about HIV testing, HIV symptoms, HIV prevention, and related topics. Our content is written for adults who are considering testing, who have just tested, or who are looking for general HIV information. We try to balance reassurance with honesty, and we aim to direct readers to professional medical care when their situation calls for it.

We do not replace professional medical advice. Every medical page on this site links to qualified information sources and reminds readers that medical concerns should be discussed with a healthcare provider.

2. How we create content

Each medical page is researched against authoritative public health sources. The primary sources we rely on are:

• The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
• The World Health Organization (WHO)
• The UK National Health Service (NHS)
• The British HIV Association (BHIVA)
• Peer-reviewed medical literature (PubMed, Cochrane reviews)
• The bioLytical Laboratories Instructions for Use document for the INSTI HIV Self Test

All factual claims on medical pages are linked to one of these sources where the claim is made, and a sources section appears at the bottom of each page listing the references used. Where two reputable sources differ on a specific number (for example, exact window-period figures), we note that difference rather than choosing one and hiding the other.

We avoid: secondary aggregator sites without medical credentials, opinion-based health blogs, and any sources that promote unverified claims about HIV.

3. Medical review and approval

For pages where we engage a qualified medical professional for content review, that page carries the reviewer's byline and review date. Currently, Dr. H.S. Hermanides has reviewed and approved the HIV Symptoms page; her credentials are on her author page. Other medical pages on this site have not been independently reviewed and do not carry a reviewer byline. We make this distinction explicit so visitors can judge each page on its own merits.

We do not claim ongoing or scheduled medical review of all site content. The pages reviewed by Dr. Hermanides are explicitly marked with her review approval and the date of that approval in their byline. Pages that have not been reviewed by a medical professional do not carry such a byline.

Significant medical updates to a previously reviewed page — for example, new clinical guidelines that change the substance of the page — trigger a fresh review before the update is published. Minor edits (typo fixes, formatting changes) do not.

4. Sources and references

Each medical page on this site includes a sources section at the bottom, listing the authoritative references used. References are numbered and tied to specific claims in the page text via superscript footnotes (Vancouver-style citation).

We link to original primary sources where possible — for example, directly to a CDC or NHS guideline page rather than to a secondary article that summarises it. Where a reference is to a peer-reviewed paper, we provide the full citation (authors, year, journal) and a DOI link or PubMed URL when available.

If you find a claim on this site that you believe is inaccurate or outdated, please contact us — see corrections, below.

5. Updates and freshness

Each medical page shows the date of the most recent substantive review or update in its byline. This is not a publication date — it is the date of the most recent review against current sources.

We commit to checking medical pages for currency at least once every 18 months, and earlier if a major change in clinical guidance has been issued by one of the authoritative sources we rely on. When a check results in changes, the relevant page is re-reviewed before the changes are published.

If the underlying clinical evidence on a page has not changed in 18 months, the page is left as is, and the review date is updated to reflect that the check was performed.

7. Corrections and feedback

If you find a factual error, an outdated reference, or content that you believe has been overtaken by current clinical guidance, please email us at customer@one-self.nl with the page URL and a brief description of the issue.

We aim to respond to corrections within 5 working days. Where a correction is needed, we make the change and update the review date on the page accordingly. Significant corrections also trigger a fresh review by a medical professional before the corrected version is published.