Editorial Policy

In brief

• Every material technical or medical claim must be traceable.
• Intended use and device function are distinct from evidence of clinical benefit.
• Manufacturers can document technical features but are not the sole basis for superiority claims.
• Artificial intelligence may assist editing; it is not a factual source or a substitute for medical review.

Scope

This policy applies to all Russian and English RoboOrthoClub content. It defines the minimum standard before publication and the correction process afterwards. The project publishes general education, not individual medical advice.

Source hierarchy

Regulatory records, instructions for use and formal technical documentation take priority for intended use, system components and configuration limits. Current manufacturer material may explain workflow, but a promotional benefit claim requires independent clinical evidence.

For treatment outcomes, we prioritise transparent systematic reviews, followed by randomised or prospective comparative research, robust observational studies and registries. Case series can describe experience or uncommon events but cannot establish comparative superiority. A press release is not a substitute for a paper.

Claim review

An assessable claim identifies the system and procedure, population, comparator, endpoint and follow-up when relevant. Numerical results include study design and sample size. Technical accuracy is treated as a surrogate endpoint; it is not automatically translated into less pain, faster recovery, fewer revisions or longer implant survival.

Conflicting evidence is described or the claim is narrowed. “Not established” is preferable to speculation. Findings from MAKO, CORI, CUVIS, ROSA and VELYS are not merged into a single robotics effect without a justified assessment of comparability.

Medical review and conflicts

Content containing clinical conclusions is reviewed by an appropriately qualified professional. The reviewer checks terminology, scope, limitations and hidden recommendations. A name and review date appear only when that review has actually occurred.

Equipment support, paid training, consulting, research funding or another relationship that could shape perception is disclosed. A relationship does not automatically invalidate information, but it makes transparent sourcing essential. Manufacturer fact-checking does not confer editorial control.

Artificial intelligence and translation

AI tools may support outlining, language checks and a draft translation. They do not verify facts, references or quotations. A human checks every URL, number, product name, authorised use and limitation against the source. Patient-identifiable information is never submitted to such tools.

The English edition is an editorial counterpart, not machine-translated filler. Both languages preserve claim strength, scope, figures and limitations. Official English nomenclature is used, and jurisdiction-specific authorisations are stated explicitly.

Updates, corrections and responsibility

The review date records an actual source check. Pages are revisited when a configuration, regulatory scope or material evidence base changes. Factual errors are corrected promptly; consequential corrections receive a short explanation. An unresolved claim is removed or marked uncertain until it can be verified.

Authors are responsible for faithful source use, medical reviewers for the stated review scope, and publishing editors for disclosures and compliance. None of those roles replaces the reader’s need to discuss individual decisions with a healthcare professional.

Policy version: 8 August 2026.

This material is for information and education only and is not a substitute for medical consultation. Diagnostic and treatment decisions must be made individually with a qualified healthcare professional.