A publishing process that fits the review you already run.
MLR workflow integration connecting your website’s publishing process to the medical, legal and regulatory review your company already runs, so content moves through approval without a separate, disconnected process fighting against it.
Many pharma sites are built with publishing entirely disconnected from MLR review, which means content either bypasses review informally or the website team maintains a shadow tracking system alongside whatever your MLR platform already provides.
Integration between your website CMS and MLR platform where technically feasible, a publishing workflow that mirrors your actual review stages, status visibility so nobody publishes prematurely, and an audit trail matching what MLR compliance requires.
We connect the website’s publishing workflow to the MLR review process your team already operates, so nothing publishes outside the review you rely on and nothing about how that review works has to change.
The scope our MLR workflow integration work has operated within.
The right level of integration differs by how formal your existing MLR process is. MLR workflow integration starts there.
What comes up when connecting a website to MLR review.
No, medical, legal and regulatory review stays with your existing reviewers — we do not make review decisions ourselves. What we build is the connection between the website’s publishing workflow and that review process, so content cannot go live without the sign-off your team already requires. The reviewers and their approval criteria stay exactly as your organisation has defined them beforehand.
Often, provided the platform exposes an API or another integration interface we can build against. See website integrations for how we assess a given platform’s connection options and what the integration typically involves. Where no interface exists today, we would look at whether the platform vendor can expose one before assuming integration is not possible at all.
We build the review workflow directly into the website CMS, using approval stages, reviewer roles and audit trails native to the CMS itself. This gives you structured, trackable review without requiring you to adopt a separate MLR platform first. It is also a reasonable interim step if a dedicated platform is planned but not yet in place across the organisation.
No, it should make the existing review process more visible and trackable, not slower, since the review already happens today just without workflow support behind it. The goal is removing the friction of a disconnected, manual shadow process — emails, spreadsheets, chasing sign-off — not adding review steps that were not already required. Publishers see status in real time instead of waiting on an inbox.
MLR workflow integration often connects to these related problems.
A review process running separately from your publishing workflow. Tell us your MLR setup and we will tell you how we would approach the MLR workflow integration.