Our clinical review process: sub-specialty-matched neuroradiology review, evidence verification, and annual updates
Radiology Prime’s medical content — covering MRI and CT imaging of the brain, spine, and head and neck — is independently reviewed before publication by our Clinical Lead, a European-registered consultant radiologist (Facharzt für Radiologie) with sub-specialty focus in neuroradiology and over ten years of senior experience, formerly Chief Resident in Neuroradiology at University Hospital Freiburg. All clinical content is evidence-verified, updated on a minimum annual cycle, and provided for informational purposes to support discussion with your treating physician.
Why independent sub-specialty review underpins every piece of content on this platform
At Radiology Prime, all medical and radiology content is created and maintained with a focus on clinical accuracy, evidence alignment, and direct relevance to specialist neuroradiology practice. To support this commitment, all content is subject to a formal review process by our Clinical Lead — both before initial publication and at regular intervals thereafter.
This page describes the workflow applied to all clinical content on this platform, the criteria our Clinical Lead applies, the schedule for ongoing reviews, and the triggers that initiate an unscheduled review. It should be read alongside the Clinical Lead & Medical Review page, which describes the governance structure and credentials of our reviewing radiologist, and the Editorial Policy, which defines the broader publishing standards that govern all content decisions.
Four structured review stages applied to all clinical content.
Annual scheduled review cycle for all published content.
Sub-specialty-matched review by a consultant neuroradiologist.
The four-stage review process
All clinical content published on this platform passes through four structured stages before it is made available to users. These stages apply to new content at the point of creation and to existing content at each scheduled or triggered review interval.
Content creation
Content is drafted by a qualified author or content specialist working within the scope of specialist neuroradiology — covering the platform’s six sub-capabilities of neuro-oncology, demyelinating diseases, neurodegenerative diseases, congenital anomalies of the brain and spine, head and neck imaging, and vascular diseases of the head, neck, and spine. All draft content is written against a defined brief that specifies the target clinical topic, the intended audience (patients, referring clinicians, or both), and the evidence sources to be referenced.
AI-assisted tools may be used to support drafting or summarisation at this stage. All AI-assisted content is subject to the same review process as human-authored content and remains the editorial responsibility of our Clinical Lead, who approves it for publication. This is consistent with the AI-assisted content policy described in the Editorial Policy.
Clinical review
The draft is reviewed by our Clinical Lead, a consultant radiologist with sub-specialty focus in neuroradiology, who applies her sub-specialty expertise to all content within scope. The four assessment criteria are:
- Accuracy of medical facts, clinical terminology, and imaging descriptions
- Consistency with accepted neuroradiology reporting standards and current clinical guidelines
- Alignment with peer-reviewed evidence relevant to the imaging modality and clinical context
- Clarity, completeness, and clinical relevance for the intended audience
Content does not proceed to publication until our Clinical Lead has assessed it against all four criteria and indicated that it is suitable for publication. Where content falls outside her direct sub-specialty scope, publication is deferred — not substituted with a general radiology review.
Evidence verification
Following clinical review, all factual claims and clinical statements are checked against primary or secondary evidence sources. Where content references specific neuroradiology frameworks, diagnostic criteria, or reporting standards — such as McDonald criteria for MS, RANO for neuro-oncology response assessment, Fazekas scoring for white matter disease, MTA, GCA, and Koedam visual rating scales for neurodegenerative imaging, NI-RADS for head and neck cancer surveillance, ASPECTS for stroke, or Spetzler-Martin for AVM grading — the relevant edition in effect at the time of publication is identified and referenced accordingly.
Source references are retained internally to support future review cycles. Content may not be published if supporting evidence cannot be identified or if available evidence is insufficient to substantiate the clinical claims made.
Ongoing review and updates
Published content is entered into a scheduled review cycle. All content is reviewed at a minimum of once per year. Content with direct relevance to patient understanding, evolving clinical guidelines, or actively developing areas of neuroradiology practice may be reviewed on a shorter cycle.
At each review interval, our Clinical Lead re-assesses the content against the same four criteria applied at stage two. Where updates are required, the content is revised and the date of last review is recorded. Where content cannot be updated to meet current clinical accuracy standards, it is retracted in accordance with the corrections, updates, and retractions policy described in the Editorial Policy.
Scheduled reviews and content currency
All published content on this platform is subject to a minimum annual review cycle. The review date is recorded at the time of publication and updated following each completed review. The “last reviewed” date displayed on individual pages and articles reflects the most recent completed review, not the publication date.
Standard content: annual
Minimum review frequency for all published clinical content.
High-impact content: six months
Accelerated cycle for content in rapidly evolving clinical areas, including post-treatment response assessment in neuro-oncology and emerging MS diagnostic criteria.
Content is prioritised for earlier review where the clinical topic is subject to active guideline development, where new major studies or meta-analyses are published that may affect the accuracy of the content, or where a reader, clinician, or our Clinical Lead identifies a potential inaccuracy through our feedback process.
Triggers for unscheduled content reviewled content review
n addition to the scheduled annual review cycle, any of the following developments will trigger an immediate unscheduled review of the relevant content. All unscheduled reviews follow the same four-stage process described above. Any changes to clinical content — including factual statements, imaging descriptions, or evidence references — are reviewed and approved by our Clinical Lead before publication.
New clinical guidelines or consensus statements
Publication of updated or new guidelines from major European radiology bodies — including the European Society of Radiology (ESR), the European Society of Neuroradiology (ESNR), the German Roentgen Society, the Royal College of Radiologists (UK), and the Swiss Society of Radiology — affecting content on this platform.
Significant new research or evidence
Publication of studies, systematic reviews, or meta-analyses that materially change the evidence base for a clinical claim or imaging interpretation framework on this platform.
Changes to neuroradiology reporting standards
Updates to established neuroradiology frameworks referenced on this platform — including McDonald criteria, RANO, Fazekas, MTA, GCA, Koedam, NI-RADS, ASPECTS, Spetzler-Martin, or MAGNIMS protocols.
Internal review or expert feedback
Identification of inaccuracies, omissions, or opportunities for clinical improvement by the editorial team, our Clinical Lead, or a reader submitting feedback.
Reviewing radiologist qualifications
Clinical reviews are conducted exclusively by licensed specialist radiologists with sub-specialty expertise directly relevant to the clinical content under review. The eligibility criteria below apply to our Clinical Lead today and will apply to any additional sub-specialty reviewers who join the platform’s reviewing team as it grows.
Reviewer eligibility criteria
Verified specialist qualification
Holds a recognised specialist radiology qualification valid within a regulated European medical or academic framework — such as Facharzt für Radiologie (Germany), FRCR (United Kingdom), or FMH Radiologie (Switzerland).
Active professional standing
Holds a current and active clinical position within a recognised hospital, radiology service, or academic institution, and is subject to the professional standards and continuing education requirements of their national medical regulatory body.
Sub-specialty match
Possesses direct sub-specialty expertise in the clinical area of the content being reviewed. Within the platform’s current scope, this means sub-specialty expertise in one or more of the six neuroradiology sub-capabilities: neuro-oncology, demyelinating diseases, neurodegenerative diseases, congenital anomalies of the brain and spine, head and neck imaging, and vascular diseases of the head, neck, and spine.
Evidence-based communication
Demonstrates familiarity with evidence-based clinical communication standards and the requirements of producing accurate, patient-accessible neuroradiology content.
Conflict of interest compliance
Has completed a conflict of interest declaration in accordance with the requirements set out in the Editorial Policy prior to undertaking any review.
The full governance structure, credentials, and professional profile of our Clinical Lead are described in detail on the Clinical Lead & Medical Review page.
Sub-specialty coverage
Radiology Prime is a specialist neuroradiology second-opinion platform. All clinical content and second-opinion review services on this platform are delivered within sub-specialty neuroradiology and cover the following six clinical areas, each personally reviewed by our Clinical Lead:
- Neuro-oncology — primary and metastatic tumours of the brain and spinal cord, including post-treatment follow-up using RANO criteria
- Demyelinating diseases — multiple sclerosis and related inflammatory CNS conditions, applying McDonald criteria and MAGNIMS protocols
- Neurodegenerative diseases — dementia, white matter disease, and related conditions, applying MTA, GCA, Koedam, and Fazekas visual rating scales
- Congenital anomalies of the brain and spine — Chiari malformations, tethered cord, spinal dysraphism, and cortical developmental abnormalities
- Head and neck imaging — tumour, trauma, and inflammatory pathology, applying NI-RADS and TNM staging where relevant
- Vascular diseases of the head, neck, and spine — stroke, aneurysms, AVMs, and venous sinus thrombosis, applying ASPECTS and Spetzler-Martin grading
The platform does not publish content or accept second-opinion cases outside specialist neuroradiology. Sub-specialty areas explicitly out of scope include musculoskeletal, urology and gynaecology, cardiothoracic, breast imaging, body oncology, and emergency presentations.
Clinical governance: how we maintain accuracy, independence, and evidence alignment
The medical review process described on this page is one part of the broader clinical governance framework that underpins all content published on the Radiology Prime platform. It is reviewed and updated periodically to ensure it remains aligned with current medical publishing standards and the professional standards of the European neuroradiology community.
We are committed to providing patients, referring clinicians, and healthcare professionals with neuroradiology content that is accurate, evidence-based, and clinically trustworthy. Radiology Prime provides an independent specialist neuroradiology radiology report for your personal information, to support discussion with your treating physician. It is not medical advice, does not diagnose or treat any condition, and does not create a doctor-patient relationship with Radiology Prime or its reviewing radiologist. Always consult your treating physician before making any healthcare decisions.
If you have a question about a specific piece of content, believe you have identified an inaccuracy, or would like to understand more about how a particular article or resource was reviewed, please contact us directly. All feedback is logged and assessed by the editorial team.
Related policies and governance documents
Governance
Clinical Lead & Medical Review
Clinical Lead profile, reviewer credentials, and independence standards
Standards
Clinical Governance & Professional Standards
Consultant eligibility and reporting frameworks