How the assessment works
Content is assessed against the criteria below by qualified reviewers, independent of the company being scored. The points across all four dimensions sum to a single 0–100 score, which maps to a tier.
Independent & qualified
Assessments are performed by healthcare professionals and regulatory-affairs specialists with ABPI signatory experience, independent of the company assessed.
ABPI Code-aligned
Criteria are derived from the ABPI Code of Practice and established regulatory expectations (SmPC consistency, prescribing information, adverse-event reporting, audience controls).
You cannot pay to improve a score
Scores follow the criteria alone. No company can pay to raise, remove or suppress a score. If you believe a score is incorrect, you may submit a formal appeal with evidence.
Valid for 24 months
Assessments mirror the ABPI Code's two-year review cycle. We send renewal reminders at 20 months; expired scores are greyed out on the badge until renewed.
The score tiers
Your total across the 22 criteria places the content in one of four tiers. Content awaiting assessment shows as Pending.
Platinum
90–100
Gold
75–89
Silver
60–74
Below Standard
under 60
Pending
not yet assessed
The 22 criteria
Grouped into the four dimensions, with the points available for each. Descriptions summarise what a reviewer assesses; the full assessment applies the detailed ABPI Code-aligned checks appropriate to the content type.
🔬
D1 — Evidence & Accuracy
Are the claims true, on-licence, and fairly supported by evidence?
40
points · 7 criteria
| Ref | Criterion | Points |
|---|---|---|
| D1.1 | On-licence accuracy Indications, patient groups and lines of therapy are fully consistent with the current UK SmPC, with no implication of off-label use. | 7 |
| D1.2 | Substantiated efficacy claims Efficacy claims are accurate, qualified by population, timeframe and comparator, and avoid absolute or guaranteed-outcome language. | 6 |
| D1.3 | Fair safety representation Safety and tolerability are balanced; key risks, warnings and major contraindications are reflected and the product is not implied to be risk-free. | 6 |
| D1.4 | Supported comparative & economic claims Any comparison or cost claim uses appropriate data, populations and endpoints; no unsupported "best-in-class" or superiority language. | 5 |
| D1.5 | Traceable referencing Data claims are supported by identifiable, reasonably current references (study, author, year, journal or data on file) an HCP could locate. | 6 |
| D1.6 | Transparent study presentation Study design, population, endpoints and duration are summarised fairly; post-hoc, exploratory and subgroup analyses are clearly labelled. | 5 |
| D1.7 | Overall balance & non-misleading presentation Taken as a whole, benefits and risks are reasonably balanced; graphs and visuals are not misleading through scale, truncation or emphasis. | 5 |
👁️
D2 — Transparency & Disclosure
Can the reader see what it is, who made it, and how to report a problem?
25
points · 6 criteria
| Ref | Criterion | Points |
|---|---|---|
| D2.1 | Clear product identity Product name, form, strength and the indication(s) discussed are clearly stated, including which strengths or formulations apply. | 4 |
| D2.2 | Prescribing information accessible Prescribing information is present as text or via a clearly associated single-click link or QR code that reaches current PI in one step, per the ABPI Code. | 5 |
| D2.3 | PI consistency & legal particulars Indications, dosing and safety in the PI are consistent with the body of the material; legal classification and cost are included as required. | 4 |
| D2.4 | Adverse-event reporting present The required adverse-event reporting statement (MHRA Yellow Card and company contact) is present, prominent and not truncated or obscured. | 5 |
| D2.5 | Authorship, funding & interests disclosed The responsible party, funding/sponsorship and any conflicts of interest are disclosed, so the reader can see who produced the content and why. | 4 |
| D2.6 | Version & date of preparation A clear job/reference code and date of preparation identify the current approved version and distinguish it from superseded ones. | 3 |
🎯
D3 — Audience Appropriateness
Is it aimed at, and reaching, the right audience — and nobody it shouldn't?
20
points · 5 criteria
| Ref | Criterion | Points |
|---|---|---|
| D3.1 | Correct content classification The material is correctly and consistently classified — promotional, educational or non-promotional — across all its parts. | 4 |
| D3.2 | Defined, appropriate audience The intended audience (e.g. specific HCPs vs public/patients) is clear and consistent with the content's language, layout and distribution. | 4 |
| D3.3 | Adequate access control & gating Where content is HCP-only, appropriate access controls or gating are in place so the public is not inadvertently exposed to HCP promotion. | 4 |
| D3.4 | No disguised promotion Promotional and educational content are not conflated; disease-awareness or educational framing is not used to disguise product promotion. | 4 |
| D3.5 | Appropriate distribution & channel The distribution channel suits the audience and won't cause the material to act as advertising of a prescription-only medicine to the public. | 4 |
✅
D4 — Process & Compliance Signals
Does it show the marks of a properly governed, reviewable process?
15
points · 4 criteria
| Ref | Criterion | Points |
|---|---|---|
| D4.1 | Certifiable / MLR review evident The material is prepared so it can undergo formal medical signatory certification (MLR) or equivalent approval before use. | 4 |
| D4.2 | Version control & approval status A clear version identifier and dating distinguish the current approved version; no draft or superseded content is in use. | 4 |
| D4.3 | Audit trail withstands scrutiny Sufficient codes, references and rationale exist for the material to withstand external scrutiny such as a PMCPA case review. | 4 |
| D4.4 | Data privacy obligations met Where personal data is collected, GDPR obligations (consent mechanisms, privacy notice) are met and clearly signposted. | 3 |
Why openly published? Other quality schemes keep their methodology private. We don't. Publishing the rubric means the score means the same thing to everyone — the company being assessed, the HCP reading the content, and the patient relying on it.
Note for review: this rubric is derived from your ABPI Code-aligned content-review framework and distilled into the four public dimensions. It resolves the earlier mismatch (the homepage lists 5 / 5 / 4 / 3 = 17 criteria) by keeping your published point weights (40 / 25 / 20 / 15) and distributing 22 criteria as 7 / 6 / 5 / 4. Edit any criterion, and I'll update the homepage counts to match once you approve.
See where your content stands
Your first assessment is free. Get a full breakdown against every criterion above — no subscription needed to start.
Get your content scored — free