Who medically reviewed an article, and when, is the field that separates current health content from content that merely exists.
Plans from €169 a month · Free project assessment · Reply within 1 business day
CSV · Excel · JSON · XML · FTP · SFTP · Amazon S3 · Google Cloud
API, JSON feed or CSV, XLSX and JSON files
ScheduleOne-time, monthly, weekly, daily or 3 times a day
Healthline pages, filters, fields and a schedule
Built, monitored and repaired by our team
API, JSON feed or CSV, XLSX and JSON files
ScrapeIt runs the collection as a managed service. You name the conditions or topics; we build the pipeline with all three dates, reviewer credentials and section structure preserved, and hand back CSV, JSON, Excel or a push into your warehouse.
Collection is paced, so a large corpus is a slow job and we quote the realistic duration up front rather than discovering it in delivery.
This is consumer health publishing, not clinical guidance. It suits content strategy, search research and competitive analysis; anything touching patient care needs authoritative sources and your own clinical governance.
Article records carry the title, topic and condition, category, author, medical reviewer as credited, publication date, last medical review date, last updated date, word count, section structure and the address.
Three dates are kept apart: published, updated and medically reviewed. They mean different things, they diverge, and a corpus that keeps one of them and calls it the date cannot answer the only quality question worth asking of health content.
Reviewer credentials are recorded as published, since a review by a physician and a review by a dietitian are different claims about the same article.
Section structure is preserved rather than flattened, because health articles follow a recognisable shape - symptoms, causes, treatment, when to see a doctor - and comparing coverage depth across publishers is a section-level question.
Every row carries the collection timestamp and a revision count where re-collection shows the article changed.
Content gap analysis against a client's own library is the most direct commercial output: which conditions are uncovered, which sections are thin, and where a competitor has depth. It is a set difference once both sides are structured.
Review freshness distribution across a competitor's library shows whether they maintain content or accumulate it - a strategic read that is invisible from a sitemap count.
Search-facing structure analysis - headings, question formats, section ordering - supports content teams working on health topics, where the format conventions are unusually stable and worth matching deliberately.
Healthline is one of the largest consumer health publishers, covering conditions, symptoms, treatments, nutrition and wellness for a general audience rather than for clinicians.
It carries a structural feature that makes it more useful as data than most health content: articles are attributed to a medical reviewer with a review date. That turns a content corpus into something with a quality dimension - not a guarantee of accuracy, but a recorded claim about who checked the piece and when.
For anyone doing competitive content analysis in health, that field is the one that matters. Coverage depth is easy to count; currency of review is what distinguishes a maintained library from a large one.
Article sections respond directly with substantial content.
Delivery: CSV, JSON or XLSX files, our API or a JSON feed. MCP server on request.
Full plan detailsHealth content analysis usually starts as a volume exercise - who covers what, how many articles per condition - and stops being useful at exactly that point.
Volume says little. A publisher with four hundred articles on a condition, last reviewed four years ago, is in a different position from one with eighty reviewed this year. Review recency is the differentiator and it is published on the page, so collecting it costs nothing and not collecting it wastes the project.
The second reason is content gap analysis, which is what most clients are really buying. Which conditions and which sections within a condition a competitor covers, at what depth and how recently, is a content roadmap in data form - and it needs the section structure as well as the dates.
The third is that this is consumer content, not clinical guidance, and we say so in the first conversation. It is fit for content strategy, search research and competitive analysis. It is not a source for anything touching patient care, and a client who needs that needs authoritative sources and clinical governance.
The fourth is reviewer credentials. A review by a physician and a review by a dietitian are different claims about the same article, so the credential is recorded as published.
Learn how to use web scraping to solve data problems for your organization
Leveraging advances in technology, the AI-powered web scraper has skyrocketed in demand and is helping to expand capabilities by automating tedious daily tasks and speeding up data collection from thousands of websites several times over.
Web scraping is a method of obtaining web data by extracting it from pages of web resources with the help of a program, that is, in automatic mode. It is used to syntactically convert web pages into more usable forms.
If you specialize in machine learning, you need to feed large amounts of data to the algorithms. Web scraping is the easiest and the most efficient method of collecting the data from all over the Internet.
ScrapeIt is a managed extraction company, not a tool you have to learn. Our team builds the pipeline, watches it as article templates and reviewer conventions change, and repairs it before a freshness analysis goes stale itself.
You see a sample first, in your format, over the conditions you actually cover, with the three dates separated so you can see immediately how much of a competitor's library is genuinely maintained.
Still unsure? Write to info@scrapeit.io
Because published, updated and medically reviewed mean different things and they diverge. A corpus that keeps one of them and calls it the date cannot answer the only quality question worth asking of health content, which is how recently somebody checked it.
Barely. Four hundred articles last reviewed four years ago is a different position from eighty reviewed this year. Review recency is the differentiator, it is published on the page, and collecting it costs nothing.
No, and we say it first rather than last. This is consumer health publishing. It suits content strategy, search research and competitive analysis; anything touching patient care needs authoritative sources and your own clinical governance.
Slowly and reliably. We pace requests, so a large library is measured in days rather than hours. We quote the real duration up front rather than discovering it in delivery.
Yes. Article titles, authors, credited medical reviewers, the published, updated and review dates and the section structure are shown to any visitor. We collect only publicly available data - everything a visitor can see on Healthline - and we collect it legally.
You share your needs, expectations, and desired timeframe. We'll suggest the best solution based on your request and budget.
Our specialists configure the crawlers and extract a sample dataset for your review before proceeding with the full-scale extraction.
Once you approve the sample, we launch the project and start full data collection. We gather, filter, and structure the data for easy use, delivering it on time in your preferred format.
Our team manages ongoing processes, monitors website changes, and supports all data extraction cycles. We can also help integrate data into your systems or create dashboards to simplify analysis.
Tell us which sites, which fields and how often. A couple of lines is enough to start.
Healthline data from €169/month. Free project assessment, reply within 1 business day.