👩⚕️ About Disha Arora
Disha Arora is a physician with postgraduate training in pathology and a Master of Public Health. She has experience across clinical pathology, biomedical research, medical writing and patient-facing health content review. Her review work focuses on medical accuracy, patient safety, and the clear communication of complex clinical information.
She has been registered with the Delhi Medical Council since 2009, and her registration is current and publicly searchable on the Council's register. Her professional background is also on her public LinkedIn profile.
📄 THE REGISTER ENTRY, IN FULL
MBBS — Rani Durgawati Vishwa Vidyalaya, Jabalpur, 2008
DNB (Pathology) — National Board of Examinations, 2011
Registered with the Delhi Medical Council since February 2009
DNB (Diplomate of National Board) is India's postgraduate specialist qualification in a chosen field, awarded by the National Board of Examinations and recognised as equivalent to an MD — which is how it is shown elsewhere on this site. The register entry is set out here so the public record can be checked against what we've written.
A pathology background is a useful one for this site in particular. A large share of what we publish concerns tests — serum tryptase, urinary mediator metabolites, the active stand test, the tests behind a POTS, MCAS or hEDS diagnosis — and how easily their results are over-read or under-read by patients trying to make sense of a report.
🔍 What a medical review covers here
Review is not proofreading, and it is not co-writing. Articles are drafted from published clinical sources, then sent for review with a specific brief. She is asked to check four things:
Factual accuracy — anything stated that isn't right, or is right but out of date.
Safety framing — anything that could lead a reader to delay care, or to over-read a result.
Clinically important omissions — what a patient in that situation needs to know and isn't being told.
Scope discipline — anything that strays past general information into individual medical advice.
Style, tone and search optimisation are explicitly outside her remit. If she flags something in those areas, it isn't acted on as a medical correction.
📌 The rule we work to
Every comment from the reviewer is applied, or the article does not carry her name. There is no version of this where a correction is quietly declined and the credit stays. If a review finds something we would rather not change, the credit line comes off — not the correction.
✅ What review does — and doesn't — mean
A review line means a qualified physician has read that article and that her comments have been applied. That is a real check, and it is worth knowing about.
It does not mean the article is medical advice. Nothing here is written for your particular body, your particular history or your particular medication list, and no reviewer can supply that from a distance. It doesn't create a doctor-patient relationship, it can't diagnose you, and it never replaces the person actually treating you.
Where our content and your clinician disagree, follow your clinician. They have information about you that a published guide structurally cannot.
📚 Articles reviewed
This list grows as reviews are completed. Each reviewed article carries the review line and date at the top of the page.
More are in review now, starting with the guide to the medical tests behind a POTS, MCAS or hEDS diagnosis.
🧭 How this fits the rest of the site
Medical review is one part of how content is produced here. The sourcing standards, the writing approach, the corrections policy and what we refuse to publish are set out in full on our editorial policy page, and the shorter version is on about this site.
If you're a clinician and you think something we've published is wrong, we would genuinely rather hear it than not. Corrections made quickly matter more than pages that are never questioned.