How these articles are written and reviewed
Worth stating, because in this sector most "guides" are written to rank rather than to inform, and the difference is not always visible from the outside.
- 1The question comes from patients, not from a keyword tool. If several people ask the same thing in consultations, it becomes an article.
- 2A writer drafts it from published literature and from what our own clinicians say in practice, with ranges rather than single flattering figures.
- 3A clinician reviews it — a surgeon or dentist in the relevant specialty, who can and does send things back.
- 4Figures are checked against published data. Where the evidence is genuinely uncertain, the article says so rather than picking the most convenient number.
- 5It is edited to say the awkward part, because an article that only supports the sale is not worth reading.
- 6It is dated and revised. Practice changes, prices change, and an article that was accurate in 2024 may not be now.
What you should assume about any medical travel blog
That it was written to rank for a search term and reviewed by nobody clinical. Ask who reviewed it and what their specialty is. If an article never tells you anything inconvenient, it was not written to inform you.
What we will not publish
A shorter and more useful list than what we will.
- Patient photographs. Only with each patient’s specific written consent, and only where the rules allow. Advertising rules for cosmetic procedures restrict them in several countries our patients live in, and Turkish health advertising regulation restricts them here.
- Testimonials gathered at discharge. A patient filmed three days after surgery is describing hospitality and relief, not an outcome that does not exist yet.
- Guaranteed results, or a complication rate of zero. Neither exists, and publishing either would be a lie with consequences.
- Time-limited offers. Urgency has no place in a decision about surgery, and manufacturing it is the oldest trick in this field.
- Comparisons naming competitors. We will describe practices we think are harmful; we will not name a company and invite a defamation claim instead of making the argument.
- Sponsored content. We take no payment from implant, graft or product manufacturers, which is why our pages name several brands rather than recommending one.
- Articles written by an AI and published unreviewed. Whatever drafts it, a clinician reads it before it goes up.
Things we publish that cost us money
- That orthodontics should be done at home, not abroad.
- That your own health service may fund breast reduction or functional eyelid surgery on medical grounds.
- That a hair transplant during active loss is the wrong operation at the wrong time.
- That a cheap quote usually means a shorter stay than is safe.
- That we decline a meaningful share of enquiries, with the reasons listed.
How to read any medical travel guide, including this one
Six checks. They take about a minute and they will tell you more than the article does.
- 1Who reviewed it, and in what specialty? "Medically reviewed" with no name attached means nothing.
- 2Does it give ranges or single numbers? Real clinical data comes in ranges. A single confident figure usually means marketing.
- 3Does it ever argue against itself? An article on a procedure that names nobody unsuitable for it is a sales page.
- 4Does it cite anything? Not necessarily footnotes, but some indication the figures came from somewhere.
- 5Is it dated? Prices, techniques and regulation all move.
- 6Does the author benefit from your decision? We do. So does every other clinic site. That is not disqualifying, but it is worth holding in mind on every page — including this one.
We get things wrong
If you find a figure on this site that does not match the evidence, tell us and we will correct it — and say that we did. A site that has never corrected anything is not a site that has never been wrong.
About these articles: frequently asked questions
A writer drafts them from published literature and from what our clinicians say in practice, and a surgeon or dentist in the relevant specialty reviews them before publication — and sends things back.
They are indicative ranges, reviewed periodically, not quotes. Your written quote after a clinical assessment is the only figure that binds either of us.
Because for some people it is the wrong treatment, and an article that never says so is a sales page. Telling you to have orthodontics at home, or to check whether your own health service funds a procedure, costs us enquiries and is still the right thing to publish.
No. We take no payment from implant, graft or product manufacturers, which is why our pages name several brands rather than recommending one.
Advertising rules for cosmetic procedures restrict them in several of the countries our patients live in, and Turkish health advertising regulation restricts them here. Patient photographs are added only with each patient’s specific written consent and where the rules allow; until then a case shows a placeholder, and result photographs are shown privately in consultation.
When practice, prices or regulation change, and at least annually. An article that was accurate in 2024 may not be now, which is why they carry dates.
Short extracts with attribution and a link, yes. Reproducing substantial portions needs written permission — the terms of use set out the detail.
Yes, and most articles started that way. If several people ask the same question in consultations, it becomes an article.
No. It is general information, reviewed by clinicians, and it is not a diagnosis or a statement that any treatment suits you. Only a clinician who has examined you can say that.
Tell us. If you are right we will correct it and say that we did. A site that has never corrected anything is not a site that has never been wrong.
Whatever drafts an article, a named clinician in the relevant specialty reviews it before it is published. We do not publish anything unreviewed.
We will describe practices we think are harmful — per-patient commission, four-day packages for ten-day recoveries, technicians performing surgery. Naming companies invites a legal argument instead of making the point.