Editorial standards
We publish a directory, not a magazine. The standards below are the operating rules editorial follows on every entry.
Voice
Descriptive and quantified, never evaluative. Words like “leading”, “world-class”, “state-of-the-art”, “premium”, “elite” are banned when applied to a clinic, surgeon, country, or hospital. We describe what is, not how good it is. British English throughout.
What we publish
- Verified clinic records with corporate registration, accreditations, and review summaries — each cited.
- Sourced procedure information from peer-reviewed publications, recognised registries, and authoritative regulators.
- Sourced country-level information on regulators, recourse, and visa.
- Patient-utility tools whose logic is transparent and whose data is on the page.
- The corrections log of every change to a published claim.
What we do not publish
- Rankings, recommendations, or “best of” lists.
- Sponsored content. We do not accept payment for listings or referral commissions. See conflicts of interest.
- Clinic-marketing photos as if they were neutral facts.
- AI-generated medical prose. All clinical text is editorial.
- Patient reviews of named individual clinicians.
- Before-and-after images.
- Outcome claims without peer-reviewed publication or registry support.
What counts as a source
See /methodology/sourcesfor the per-claim-type rules. Briefly: regulator and government registries, peer-reviewed journals (with DOI), recognised national outcome registries, and the clinic’s own legally-accountable disclosures (e.g. companies-house filings, mandatory regulator notifications).
What counts as verification
See /methodology/tiers for the verification-tier rules. Briefly: every Tier-1 / Tier-2 / Tier-3 claim is paired to one or more entries in the registry-wide source list. The verification log on each clinic records who checked what, against which source, and with what result.