Using AI for Editing at Physiopedia

Top Contributors - Alexandra Stead

Introduction

We at Physiopedia are all about embracing AI and technology, especially to help us speed up admin-heavy tasks or to act as a second pair of eyes when reviewing. We are proud to be leading the way in AI resources designed specifically for Physiotherapists/ rehabilitation professionals, with our in-house AI tool known as PAI. For your role as an editor, AI can be a helpful assistant when reviewing the quality of pages, but it's not a replacement for your clinical expertise. It is important that we use AI tools responsibly and ethically while maintaining Physiopedia's standards for evidence-based, high-quality content.

Utilising AI

AI can be used as part of our stringent review process. We have trialled and tested various AI prompts that reflect our quality standards, which has helped to optimise actionable outputs when reviewing our content, and help speed up and improve the overall edits that we make on our content.

As an overview, AI can be helpful supporting language review, checking for quality of a page and the structure and organisation of content. Specifically, you may use AI to identify gaps in content, review the flow between sections, look for duplication of information, check all sections are present and whether pages are suitably introduced and concluded. You may also check the language used or ask to help review whether there are any overly complex sentences or dense paragraphs. You can use AI to review areas where bullet points might improve clarity (Note: AI often over-suggests bullets, so use judgment), assist you with spotting inconsistent terminology (UK vs US spelling, varying terms for the same concept), identify contradictory statements within the same page and inconsistent use of abbreviations or flag any areas needing citations and highlight text resembling direct quotes requiring proper attribution.

As a summary, there is a lot of potential and benefits to using AI and we encourage you to embrace AI and play about with how it can help you. However, it is important that we do not solely rely on AI and remain cautious with its suggestions and how we use it. You should not ever ask AI to write a page for you or write any of our content, as this can lead to inaccuracies, lower quality and loss of creative writing flair.

AI is still developing and as a result there are some limitations to be mindful of:

Medical Knowledge Gaps

Often misses current best practices
May not know recent research findings
Excludes information that is behind a paywall or that it does not have access to
Information cut-off dates mean it may provide outdated recommendations

Reliability Issues

AI can confidently present incorrect information
May invent references that do not exist ("hallucinations")
May present real references that do not match the information presented
Misunderstands specialised physiotherapy terminology

Clinical Limitations

Lacks real-world clinical context
Misses clinical nuance that comes from experience
May reproduce problematic biases from training data

Quality issues

Does not understand page structure
Often misses punctuation and favours ‘em’ dashes [—]
Can overly use bullet points when they are not necessary
Can create short sentences out of context

Remember: Always verify AI suggestions with trusted sources and your own expertise.

Selecting AI Tools

We use Claude for all Physiopedia reviews. You can sign up to the free version, which provides you with a few free conversations per day, which is often sufficient to complete a quality review of a page. However, many of our volunteers find this AI useful and often pay to upgrade to have unrestricted options. We are firm believers of ethical use of AI and are also protective of our content that our dedicated team of editors have created. As a result we do not upload our content to other freely and widely used AI tools. Our Physiopedia pages are protected and therefore are not used in results or searches for common AI’s tools. Moreover, other common AI tools learns and builds by any information inputted into it and so we are keen to restrict feeding it our content, as it does not align with our ethical standards for content protection. Furthermore, this is the reasoning behind our decision to use Claude, which is protected and does not share our data or train future versions.

Practical use of Claude

We recommend regular use of Claude, particularly in the early stages of reviewing a page. Many of our editors use it as the first port of call to quickly review the quality of the page. This can be completed by using the below prompt, followed by copying the entire page into Claude for actionable suggestions. For some, this is sufficient to facilitate edits alongside their own judgment. For others, they prefer to use Claude to review smaller or more specific sections of a page. Please note, if you review section by section, this may limit your ability to use the free version of Claude each day, due to the limited number of conversations allocated.

Once a page has been edited, many editors have also found it beneficial to do another full page AI review, as a way to check if anything obvious has been missed and to spot errors such as spelling mistakes which are often overlooked. It is completely your decision as to whether you use Claude [AI], or whether you complete the edits manually yourself.

Claude AI prompt for Physiopedia Page Review

AI prompt engineering is an effective way of generating consistent and accurate outputs that meet your guidelines, when crafted correctly. Below is a suggested prompt, finalised after trialling various versions to produce clear and actionable outputs.

Claude AI Prompt

Copy and paste this prompt onto Claude to help you review a page.

NOTE: do not copy the page URL and instead highlight the whole page from title to the final reference and then copy and paste:

Please help me review this page on Physiopedia. Please provide me with a list of actionable edits to make, including real references (with links to the article) where relevant (!IMPORTANT: please make sure to only use verified references!). In the numbered list each number should contain the suggested edit to make, why and any related reference.
Help us identify areas for improvement in our webpage content, looking at:

Flow and readability

Contradictions or duplication

Outdated evidence

Spelling inconsistencies (helping us identify when UK terminology has not been used)

Possible plagiarism or paraphrasing

Weak or unclear bullet lists and headings

Suggest areas needing expansion or updates

Point out formatting issues.

Content Quality

Readability and clarity – Is the language accessible and appropriate for the target audience?

Flow and structure – Does the page follow a logical order? Are headings used effectively?

Duplication – Repeated sections, phrases, or concepts.

Redundancy – Saying the same thing in different ways—can it be simplified?

Contradictions or inconsistencies – Especially when a page has been updated in parts over time.

Overly complex sentences – Could it be explained in an easier to understand way?

Content Accuracy

Outdated information – are the references and resources used, the most up-to-date versions and published within the last 5 years?

Unclear or unsupported claims – Identify statements that should be backed by citations.

Incorrect or misleading information – Flag common clinical errors or misinterpretations.

Citations and Sources

Missing citations – Identifying statements that need evidence.

Formatting errors – Non-Vancouver style, inconsistent author-date info,

Formatting and Style

Spelling and grammar – Ask it to check that UK English has been used for spelling and medical terms

Are bullet points clearly introduced with an explanatory sentence or paragraph?

Do lists feel connected to the surrounding content, or do they appear dropped in?Please ignore the following:

Online course advertisements

Related Articles section

Other adverts on the page

In Summary: Editor Responsibilities

AI is a tool to assist your review process, not to replace it. Your clinical expertise, critical thinking, and commitment to evidence-based practice remain the foundation of quality Physiopedia content. Remember, our content is human generated and quality assured.

In summary, when using AI for page reviews, you must:

Never generate content using AI. AI is for review only, not writing
Verify everything by checking all AI suggestions against reliable sources before implementing, this includes specific information and references.
Maintain control through ensuring you make the final decisions on the content, not the AI
Watch for copyright issues as AI may suggest text too similar to published works. We still have an obligation and responsibility to prevent plagiarism.
Prioritise accuracy as quality always comes before convenience. AI can improve efficiency and support with initial reviewing, however, you should always make the final quality checks.
Use cautiously. Claude and AI is a great tool to facilitate the review process and we do encourage you to use it. However, it is up to you how you use it and we expect you to use it ethically in light of the points above.
When in doubt, consult senior editors or rely on your clinical expertise.