iQlinic Editorial Policy & Evidence Review Method

Core principle: our content should help readers evaluate technology and workflows, not create false certainty. When evidence is limited, heterogeneous or context-dependent, that limitation belongs in the article.

Scope and purpose

iQlinic Insights is written for clinic leaders, operational teams, dentists interested in technology and product decision-makers. Topics include artificial intelligence in dentistry, dental-practice operations, data integration, automation, decision support, patient continuity and AI product evaluation. Content is educational and product-management oriented; it does not replace diagnosis, treatment planning, legal advice or real-world medical-device evaluation.

Authorship and accountability

Articles are prepared by iQlinic Research & Product or by the named author shown on the page. Product and data experience can support explanations of architecture, operations and implementation, but we do not assign clinical licenses, academic credentials or professional titles that cannot be verified. If a future article is reviewed by a clinician, that reviewer is named only with consent and verifiable role information.

Source hierarchy

For scientific or sensitive claims, we prioritize peer-reviewed research, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, official guidance, standards bodies and primary sources. Commercial pages may be useful for understanding products or market context but are not treated as sufficient evidence for scientific claims. In fast-moving topics, newer high-quality evidence is preferred unless an older source is foundational.

How claims are checked

1. Define the claim. “AI models have been studied for caries detection” is different from “this tool is accurate in every clinic.”
2. Assess the evidence type. A single-center study, external validation and a systematic review do not carry the same weight.
3. Check generalizability. Results from one dataset, device or population are not automatically generalized to another.
4. Preserve uncertainty. If evidence is insufficient for a firm conclusion, the wording must reflect that uncertainty.
5. Provide traceable sources. Readers should be able to reach the original paper or official source behind a claim.

Use of AI tools in content production

AI tools may assist with early research, structure, comparison, rewriting or consistency checks. They do not replace human responsibility for accuracy and sourcing. Scientific claims must be tied to reviewable evidence; model output itself is not treated as a source. Identifiable or confidential patient information should not be entered into general-purpose content-generation tools without an authorized organizational framework.

Conflicts of interest and product content

iQlinic is itself an AI product and project. That creates an obvious potential conflict when we discuss our own approach. Educational articles must not present planned functionality as already deployed, and they must not promise revenue gains, cost reductions, diagnostic accuracy or treatment outcomes without evidence. Commercial calls to action are kept separate from scientific claims.

Clinical review and scope boundaries

An article about AI in radiology, caries, orthodontics, implants or treatment planning explains technology and evidence. Clinical decisions for a real patient require a qualified dental professional, complete patient context and applicable regulation. Unless a specific, verifiable clinical reviewer is named, iQlinic does not label an article “medically reviewed.”

Updates, corrections and removal

Publication and material-update dates are displayed on editorial pages. Errors in sources, numbers, translations or interpretation are corrected. If a correction changes the main conclusion, the change should be visible to readers. Content that can no longer be maintained may be updated, merged, redirected or removed from indexing.

Report an error or suggest a source

Email contact@iqlinic.ir with the page URL and the section you are referring to. Feedback that materially changes the scientific or factual content is incorporated into the article review cycle.