Useful evidence.
Honest context.

Sources before headlines.

Research briefs prioritize original peer-reviewed papers, systematic reviews, and professional guidance. We identify design, population, measured outcomes, numerical uncertainty, and material limitations or safety findings. We link original sources and distinguish full-text checks from abstract checks. News coverage and trial registrations do not stand in for published results.

Review status that means something.

Current briefs and learning kits are AI-assisted editorial material. A source check is not independent clinical review. Materials marked “Clinical review pending” have no named clinical reviewer. Jenny’s founder role does not imply that she reviewed or endorsed an item.

When a clinician completes a review, the item will state the reviewer’s agreed public name and professional credentials, date, and scope of review. Relevant conflicts of interest will be disclosed. A review of a learning summary is not approval of a local care protocol. We never add names, credentials, dates, endorsements, or review badges before the work and permission are confirmed.

Interpretation stays visible.

We separate reported findings from editorial interpretation and discussion questions. A study design is not a certainty grade. No clear difference is not proof of equivalence, and a process or surrogate outcome does not establish improved survival or long-term development. Newness alone is not a reason to change care.

Corrections stay connected.

Substantive corrections carry a date and explanation while keeping the original link. A withdrawn summary retains a notice and suppresses its original findings. We check for corrections and retractions during updates. Readers can report a problem through the contribution form; reports go privately to the editorial queue.

Learning across the NICU community.

We select topics for relevance across roles, experience levels, and care settings. Where appropriate, discussions should include family priorities, feasibility, equity, and unintended consequences. Resources support learning and reflection alongside approved local education and clinical governance.

People make review possible.

No clinical reviewers are listed yet. Clinicians can volunteer; reviewer details are published only after identity and relevant background are confirmed, a defined review is completed, and permission for attribution is given.

Policy updated October 25, 2026.