MMRSA Guide
Microscopic illustration of MRSA (Staphylococcus aureus) bacteria
Editorial policy

How we write and check MRSA Guide

MRSA is a health topic where a wrong detail matters. This is the process behind every page on the site, so you can judge how much weight to give it.

1. Sources we use, in order of preference

  1. National and international guidance: CDC, the IDSA clinical practice guidelines for MRSA, NHS and NICE, WHO, and national public-health agencies.
  2. Peer-reviewed literature: systematic reviews, randomised trials and large cohort studies indexed in PubMed, preferred over single small studies.
  3. Official surveillance data: CDC and UKHSA surveillance reports for incidence, resistance and mortality figures.

We do not build clinical content from press releases, commercial sites, content farms, forums or AI-generated summaries.

2. Every clinical number is cited

Dosages, mortality and survival figures, carriage rates, incubation periods and resistance percentages appear on the page only with a source listed in that page's reference list, naming the publisher and year. If a figure cannot be traced to a source we trust, we leave it out rather than estimate it.

Drug pages describe how a drug is used, its route and its common adverse effects. They are not prescribing instructions: doses depend on weight, renal function, site of infection and susceptibility results, which only a prescriber can weigh up.

3. Pages are dated and revisited

Every reference page shows the date it was last substantively updated, and the same date is published in the page's structured data and in the sitemap. We change that date when the content changes — not on every rebuild — so it stays a real signal. Guidance-dependent pages (treatment, antibiotics, decolonisation, prevention policies) are re-checked against current CDC and IDSA guidance when that guidance is revised.

4. Who writes it, and what we don't claim

Pages are written and edited by David Roberts, editor. He is not a clinician, and the site does not currently have a named medical reviewer — so pages state that they are checked against published guidance rather than claiming a clinical review. We would rather under-claim than imply expertise we don't have. When a qualified reviewer is appointed, their name and credentials will be published on each page they review.

5. News aggregation

The news section aggregates headlines from third-party publishers and from PubMed. Those items are the work of the named source, not of MRSA Guide; we choose which to surface and how to categorise them, but we do not rewrite or endorse them. Each item links to the original.

6. Independence

The site is funded by display advertising. Advertisers see no content before publication and have no influence over coverage. There are no sponsored posts, paid links or affiliate arrangements.

7. Corrections

If you find an error, tell us via the contact page and quote the page and the passage. Factual errors on clinical content are corrected as a priority, and the page's update date is changed when we do. We will not quietly delete a page to hide a mistake.