How Our Content Is Checked Before You Read It
Anyone can publish reassuring words about eye surgery. This page explains who checks ours, what they check for, and what the review does — and doesn’t — mean. So you can decide how much weight to give what you read here.
Last updated: July 2026
The Short Version
- Clinical-topic articles display their review status clearly. Some have completed clinical review; others are published with a visible “Pending clinical review” status until that process is complete.
- Our reviewers are named, with their credentials and experience published — not “our medical team” hiding in the plural.
- Our Turkish reviewer practises within our partner hospital network. We disclose that, and it limits what they review — details below.
- Articles that haven’t completed review yet say so, with a visible “Pending review” badge. We’d rather show you the gap than hide it.
- Every reviewed article shows who reviewed it and when, at the top — and is re-reviewed annually.
- Review means the content is accurate general education. It is never medical advice, and it never assesses your suitability.
The Reviewers
Three roles stand behind clinical content on this site — each with a different job.
Consultant Ophthalmologist — Turkey
A practising consultant ophthalmologist in Turkey reviews clinical articles for medical accuracy — and for how things genuinely work in Turkish refractive practice: the diagnostics, the pathways, the realities brochures don’t cover. Named, with full credentials and experience, on our reviewer page.
Consultant Ophthalmologist — UK
We intend to appoint a UK-registered (GMC) ophthalmologist to join the review process, adding a second, UK-standards perspective: checking that what you read here lines up with what your own optometrist or eye doctor would expect you to have been told. They’ll be named on the same page when their first reviews publish.
The Editor — Our Founder
Our founder — with a professional background in UK optical healthcare — edits every article and gives final sign-off. The editor’s job isn’t to overrule the doctors; it’s to make sure nothing publishes without them, and that what they’ve approved stays approved through every edit.
A Disclosure You Should Have: Our Turkish Reviewer Is Part Of Our Partner Network
Our Turkish reviewing ophthalmologist practises within our partner hospital network. We tell you that for the same reason we tell you everything else on this site — because it’s true, and because it’s relevant.
It’s part of what makes their review valuable: they know current Turkish refractive practice from the inside, not from journals alone.
And it comes with a rule we apply without exception:
The rule
Our Turkish reviewer never reviews content that names, evaluates or compares their own institution or our partner hospitals. Their review covers general clinical education — procedures, suitability factors, risks, recovery. Anything touching the partners themselves is handled separately. A reviewer marking their own homework wouldn’t be review; we’ve structured it so that can’t happen.
The reviewer’s affiliation is also stated on the reviewer page alongside their credentials — you should never have to dig for it.
How An Article Actually Gets Made
Every clinical-topic article follows the same path before it carries a “reviewed” badge:
- Drafting — with AI assistance, disclosed. We use AI tools to help draft content, under strict written instructions and an approved list of sources. We’re telling you because plenty of sites do this and don’t. What matters is what happens next: AI-generated drafts are never published without editorial review, fact-checking and, where applicable, clinical review.
- Editorial review. The editor checks structure, clarity, balance and honesty — that risks and alternatives are covered, that nothing overpromises, and that a nervous reader leaves better informed rather than better persuaded.
- Fact-checking against sources. Clinical claims are checked by a human against the original sources — the actual research or professional guidance, not a summary of it. Claims that can’t be supported are removed, not softened.
- Clinical review by an ophthalmologist. The reviewing doctor checks medical accuracy, current practice, and whether the balance of benefits, risks and alternatives is fair. They can approve, require changes, or reject. Required changes are made — and anything clinically meaningful that changes goes back to them.
- Final sign-off and publication. The editor confirms every step is complete, and the article publishes with its review information displayed at the top.
This process is being rolled out across the site article by article — which is exactly why the badges below exist. An article either shows you its completed review, or it tells you the review is pending. There is no third state where we imply a review that hasn’t happened.
What You’ll See On Every Clinical Article
At the top of each clinical-topic article, one of two things:
- A review block — showing who reviewed it, their credentials, the date it was published and the date it was last reviewed. Reviewed articles are re-reviewed periodically, because medical information, prices and guidance all move.
- A “Pending review” badge — meaning the article has been through editing and fact-checking but hasn’t yet completed clinical review. We could have simply not mentioned it. We’d rather you know exactly what stage each page is at, and weigh it accordingly.
Only clinical-topic pages — procedures, suitability, risks, recovery and similar — go through clinical review and carry these badges. Pages about our service (like this one) are held to accuracy, but they’re not medical content and don’t claim a doctor’s sign-off.
What Review Means — And What It Doesn’t
Review Means
- The content is accurate general education, reviewed for clinical accuracy by a qualified ophthalmologist.
- Risks and alternatives are presented fairly, not buried
- Claims trace back to real sources, verified by a human
- Someone with their name on the page is accountable for it
Review Never Means
- Medical advice — nothing on this site is advice for your individual situation
- A suitability assessment — that requires a comprehensive diagnostic eye examination
- That the reviewer is your doctor, or has any duty of care to you as a reader
- An endorsement of any hospital, surgeon or treatment decision — reviewers check our education, not our partners
Whatever you read here, the decision that matters is made with a qualified eye care professional who has actually examined your eyes. Our reviewed content exists to make you sharper going into that conversation — nothing more, and nothing less.
Spotted Something You Think Is Wrong?
Tell us. Seriously — a sentence on WhatsApp is enough.
If you’ve found an error, an outdated figure, or something that reads as misleading, we want to know about it, and we’ll look into it. Every person who challenges our content makes it more reliable for the next reader — which is the entire point of this page.