Who writes this, why you can trust it
One person writes this site. He is not a clinician. Every clinical claim links to its primary source. If you spot something wrong, he will fix it within 24 hours.
The longer version
I'm Oliver Wakefield-Smith, founder of Digital Signet. I am not a physiotherapist, not a doctor, not a chiropractor, not any kind of registered clinician. I read consumer-health research for a living and I write sites like this one because the existing options either bury the evidence under SEO filler or paywall it behind app subscriptions.
The way this site is built: every claim on every clinical page traces back to a Cochrane review, a PubMed-indexed primary trial, a NICE guideline (the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence — specifically NG59 for low back pain), or an established physical-therapy text. Where the evidence is mixed or weak, I say so. Where it's strong, I cite it. The references page lists every source, grouped by topic, with direct links to the underlying record.
The correction policy is simple and unconditional. Email oliver@digitalsignet.com with what's wrong and what should be there instead, and I'll have it fixed within 24 hours. No comments section, no message board, no AI-generated FAQ farm. One inbox, one person, one fix.
How this site is maintained
The clinical content is reviewed on a rolling basis against three primary feeds: the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (low back pain, exercise therapy, motor control), PubMed alerts for new randomised trials in lumbar spine rehabilitation, and updates to NICE NG59 and the Lancet Low Back Pain Series. The footer of every clinical page shows the last review date.
Citation density is non-negotiable. If a page makes a quantitative claim (“30 seconds is the threshold for tissue lengthening”, “cuts recovery time by an average of 5 days”, “disc bulge incidence is roughly 37% at age 20”), there is a primary source linked next to it. If a page makes a mechanism claim (“tight hip flexors pull the pelvis into anterior tilt”), it's drawing on standard physiotherapy texts and the relationship is explained in plain English rather than asserted.
Triggers for a content update: a new Cochrane review on a topic this site covers, a NICE guideline revision, a major Lancet series update, or a reader email pointing to evidence that contradicts a current claim. Cosmetic edits (typos, broken links, new internal links) happen continuously.
What this site is not
It is not personalised medical advice. It cannot examine you, it doesn't know your history, and it has no idea what your imaging shows. If a stretch on this site makes your pain worse, or if any of the red-flag features on the pain guide apply to you, see a physiotherapist or your GP.
It is not a replacement for a physiotherapist. A good physio will assess your movement, palpate the tissue, run neurodynamic tests, and prescribe an individualised programme. This site gives you the protocols that the research says work for most non-specific lower back pain, in a format you can do daily without leaving your bedroom. Those are different products. If you can afford the physio, see the physio.
It does not diagnose. The pain-guide triage exists to help you pick the right routine and to surface the conditions you should not try to stretch through. It is not a diagnostic tool. A “disc-bias” pattern on this site is a stretching protocol cue, not a clinical diagnosis of disc herniation.
Corrections, questions, source requests: oliver@digitalsignet.com. Last reviewed 2026-05-12.