SoftaEditorial policy
How we write and review health content
Our source hierarchy
Every factual claim in Softa's educational content is sourced, and every source is weighted by how reliable it is — not by how convenient it is to cite.
| Tier 1 — preferred | The Menopause Society (formerly NAMS) position statements, NICE guideline NG23, ACOG, peer-reviewed papers (PubMed), STRAW+10 (Harlow et al., 2012) |
| Tier 2 | Mayo Clinic, Cleveland Clinic, Johns Hopkins, NHS |
| Never used as a factual source | Blogs, competitor marketing pages, Reddit, social media, AI-generated answers |
Who writes and who reviews
Health content is drafted against the source hierarchy above, then held for medical review before it's published as reviewed. No medical reviewer is under contract yet — we're stating that plainly rather than naming someone prematurely. Until a real, named reviewer with real credentials is in place, health articles ship marked as pending review and are kept out of Google's index, not presented as medically reviewed when they aren't.
How often we revisit an article
Health guidance changes. Every reviewed article carries a “last reviewed” date, and we revisit content when the underlying guidance changes — a NICE or Menopause Society update, a newly published study that changes the picture — rather than on a fixed, arbitrary calendar.
Reporting an error
Found something wrong? Email support@softa.world with the page and what looks off. We read every message personally, correct genuine errors, and don't bury corrections — a fixed claim gets fixed on the page itself, not quietly.
What doesn't influence our content
There is no ad network in Softa and no paid placement in any article. Nothing we publish is written or adjusted because of a business relationship — the source hierarchy above is the only thing that decides what a page says.