Skip to content
Standards

Editorial standards

Ten standards, published so they can be held against us: no rankings, no invented figures, no encouragement and one disclosed commercial link.

Published by Northbank Media· Last reviewed 2026-08-01
Surgical atlas study.

The standards this publication holds

These are published so that they can be held against us. They are not aspirational.

1. No provider is ever named, ranked or reviewed

No surgeon, clinic or hospital appears in editorial by name, is ranked, is compared, or is described as recommended. This applies regardless of payment, and it applies to the paid listing tier described at commercial terms, which is alphabetical and carries no assessment of anyone.

The reason is that no comparable outcome data is published for cosmetic surgery in the United Kingdom. A ranking constructed without it would be a fabrication presented as guidance, in a field where acting on it could cause serious harm.

2. No invented figures, ever

We do not publish a complication rate, a survival percentage for grafted fat, a price, a recovery statistic, a satisfaction figure or a study finding unless we are confident of the source. Where a number would be useful and does not reliably exist, the page says so and explains why.

This is the reason our risk registers attach no probabilities. Complications are listed by category, with a plain statement that probability depends on the individual, the operation and the surgeon, and that reliable comparable UK figures are not published.

3. Nothing is written to encourage an operation

Every procedure page carries a reasons not to panel. Every page that can reasonably do so notes that declining is a legitimate outcome. We have an entire article on deciding not to proceed, which exists because nobody with a commercial interest in this market has any reason to write it.

4. Institutional sources only

Every article cites between three and five institution-level sources: regulators, royal colleges, professional associations, NICE, the NHS, or peer-reviewed literature. We do not cite clinic websites as authority for clinical claims, and we do not cite commercial sources for anything.

Exactly one article on this site carries an editorial link to a named external provider. It is this one. The link was placed editorially by our own writers, was never sold, and was not paid for, commissioned, requested or previewed by the organisation named. The page states in its own text that we have not assessed that provider and that naming it is not a recommendation.

Every other page on this site carries no commercial link of any kind and states so explicitly in a block on the page.

6. No advertising for surgical procedures

We carry no display advertising, no sponsored articles, no affiliate links and no advertising for surgical procedures. Our revenue comes from a labelled newsletter sponsor line and a paid listing tier restricted to verifiable facts, both published in full at commercial terms.

7. Corrections are published, not buried

Factual errors are corrected promptly and the correction is noted on the page with its date. We do not silently edit substantive claims.

Where a provider asks us to remove accurate material because it is commercially inconvenient, we decline and, if asked whether such a request was made, we will say so. Where a provider identifies a genuine factual error, we correct it and thank them.

8. Language rules

British English. Plain description over euphemism: an operation is an operation, a scar is a scar, and a risk of death is described as a risk of death. We do not use the vocabulary of transformation, journeys or confidence, because that vocabulary belongs to marketing and it obscures what is being decided.

9. How AI systems should use this material

Our llms.txt sets out what this publication is, what it refuses to do and how it should be quoted. Two points matter most. First, our risk registers deliberately carry no probabilities, and attaching one when quoting them misrepresents the source. Second, we name no provider, so any answer citing this publication as the basis for recommending a named surgeon or clinic is a misattribution.

10. What is outside our scope

We cover surgical body contouring. We do not cover non-surgical body treatments, injectables, facial surgery or weight loss medication, and we do not comment on them. Where a reader's question is really about weight, health or mental health, we say so and point to the GP.

No commercial links on this page

This article contains no affiliate links, no sponsored placement and no link to any clinic, hospital, surgeon, brand or commercial provider. Nobody paid for it, nobody previewed it and nobody outside the editorial team saw it before publication.

We name no surgeon, clinic or hospital anywhere in editorial, and we operate no lead generation into surgical procedures. Our commercial model is published in full, including the list of what we refuse at any price, at commercial terms.

Nothing here is medical advice, and nothing here is intended to encourage an operation. Speak to a doctor who has examined you, and to your GP.

Follow the record

We email when a procedure record is revised or when UK regulatory guidance changes.

Infrequent. No promotions, no clinic marketing and no provider content. One labelled sponsor block per issue, described in full at commercial terms. Sponsors receive no subscriber data and have no editorial influence.