Who We Are (and Are Not)

BestPlasticSurgeryClinic.us is an independent editorial publication covering roughly 20 cosmetic and plastic surgery procedures — learn more on our about us page. We publish patient-facing guides on each procedure, its candidacy criteria, recovery, cost, safety, and how to evaluate the specific decisions that determine outcomes — for a US-domestic audience, with a secondary comparison layer for those considering surgery abroad.

To be explicit about what we are not:

  • We are not a clinic and we do not perform surgery.
  • We do not rank, rate, or recommend any specific clinic or surgeon — despite what our domain name might suggest.
  • We are not a booking agency and we do not receive commissions from surgeons or hospitals when readers book procedures.
  • We are not owned by or affiliated with any specific clinic, hospital chain, or medical tourism operator.
  • We are not medical advice — see the disclaimer below.

Our role is to help readers ask better questions and make better-informed decisions before, during, and after they engage with any provider. If we do our job well, you should walk into a consultation with a clearer picture of what to expect and a shorter list of unknowns.

Our Medical Review Board — a Topic-Matched Panel

Because this site covers roughly 20 procedures spanning several distinct surgical specialties, no single reviewer can competently evaluate all of them. We consider that an important honesty point: a site claiming one all-purpose "medical reviewer" across oculoplastic, rhinologic, general plastic, and gynecologic topics would be overstating what one clinician can credibly vouch for. Instead, every clinical article on BestPlasticSurgeryClinic.us is reviewed before publication by a Medical Review Board member matched to that specific topic area:

  • Face — eyes: oculoplastic surgeon (ASOPRS) or facial plastic surgeon — reviews blepharoplasty, brow lift, ptosis-related content.
  • Face — nose/contour: facial plastic surgeon (ABFPRS) or ABPS-certified plastic surgeon — reviews rhinoplasty, buccal fat, lip lift, otoplasty, neck lift.
  • Breast & body: ABPS board-certified plastic surgeon — reviews augmentation/lift/reduction, implants, BBL, mommy makeover, arm/thigh lift, fat transfer.
  • Intimate surgery: gynecologist/urogynecologist or a plastic surgeon with relevant experience — reviews labiaplasty content within an ACOG-informed framework.
  • Men's health: plastic surgeon, with endocrinology input where relevant — reviews gynecomastia, particularly the underlying-cause screening sections.

Every reviewer must also meet: active clinical practice in the relevant procedure area, membership in a recognized professional society (ASPS, ISAPS, ASOPRS, ABFPRS, or ACOG as applicable), and no undisclosed financial relationship with any clinic or hospital — reviewers do not receive referral fees from us or through us.

Our rule until each seat is filled: a page carries the "Medically reviewed" label only once a qualified reviewer for that specific topic has actually reviewed it. A page that hasn't yet been matched to a reviewer does not carry the label or the schema markup for it — we do not fabricate review status. See Our Reviewers for the current state of the panel.

How Articles Are Written

Our writing process is designed to produce accurate, patient-focused information without the marketing bias that shapes most cosmetic-surgery content online.

  1. Topic scoping. We select topics based on real patient search demand and gaps in the existing high-quality literature. If the topic is already covered better elsewhere (for example on ASPS's own patient site), we usually link to that rather than duplicating.
  2. Primary-source research. Our editorial team gathers evidence directly from primary sources — peer-reviewed publications on PubMed/NCBI, professional-society position statements (ASPS, ISAPS), government health information (MedlinePlus, NIH, .gov), and academic institutions (.edu). We deliberately do not synthesize from other patient-facing sites; those are downstream of the same primary sources and re-summarising them adds error.
  3. Drafting. The article is drafted with each substantive claim anchored to a specific source. Inline citations are added at the point the claim is made, not batched at the end.
  4. Structured editorial pass. Structure (headings, key facts, key points, FAQ) is standardised against a published template specification so that every article has the same discoverable shape.
  5. Medical review. The article goes to a Medical Review Board member for clinical accuracy check, with specific attention to any claims that could influence a patient's decision. Reviewer comments are addressed before publication.
  6. Final QA. Sources are verified live (every link is checked), the source policy (see below) is applied, and structured data is validated.

Medical Review Process

Medical review is not a rubber stamp. Reviewers are asked to specifically evaluate:

  • Clinical accuracy of every substantive claim, checked against the cited source and their own clinical knowledge.
  • Completeness: is there a clinically important consideration the article omits that a patient should know?
  • Balance: are risks presented alongside benefits, and are limits of the evidence acknowledged?
  • Currency: does anything conflict with current professional guidance?
  • Patient-facing clarity: is a non-specialist reader likely to understand this correctly, and could any phrasing be misread?

Reviewer comments are recorded and addressed. The article is not published until the reviewer signs off. Substantive updates after initial publication go through review again.

Source Policy: Whitelist & Blacklist

We operate a deliberately strict source policy. It is stricter than we have seen on any other patient-facing site in this niche, and we are comfortable with the trade-offs.

Sources we cite (whitelist)

  • Peer-reviewed studies indexed on PubMed / NCBI — the primary source layer for clinical claims.
  • American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS) — professional-society position statements, patient information, and safety data.
  • International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery (ISAPS) — global statistics and international practice standards.
  • US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) — device safety communications and labeling, particularly for breast implants.
  • US government health resources — MedlinePlus, NIH, CDC (.gov domain).
  • Academic institutions (.edu domain) and NCBI Bookshelf — for research summaries and clinical reference material.
  • American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) — for labiaplasty and related intimate-surgery topics.

Sources we do not cite (blacklist)

  • Consumer health portals: Mayo Clinic, Cleveland Clinic, WebMD, Healthline, Verywell, RealSelf. Not because their content is necessarily inaccurate, but because they are secondary sources — downstream summaries of the same primary evidence we cite directly. We prefer to cite the primary source ourselves.
  • Individual clinic websites — however qualified the operator, clinic sites are inherently marketing and are not primary sources.
  • User-generated content platforms — RealSelf, Reddit, forums. Useful for patient experience texture, not for clinical claims.
  • Social media posts — with the extremely narrow exception of official statements from named authoritative bodies.
  • AI-generated content sites — the "content mills" that have proliferated in health search results are not primary sources.

Source count

Each of our articles cites a maximum of six sources. This is a deliberate constraint. Long source lists are often used to signal authority, but in practice a shorter, tighter, all-inline-cited source list is more useful to a reader who wants to trace a claim. Every source that appears in our source list is cited at least once inline in the article body — dangling "further reading" citations are removed by policy.

Content Freshness & Updates

Medical evidence is not static, and content that was accurate three years ago may no longer be. Our review schedule:

  • Every article is scheduled for review at least every 12 months. The "Last reviewed" date at the top of each article is the actual date of the most recent completed review, not a template variable.
  • Substantive updates trigger a fresh review cycle — a new date, and re-review by a Medical Review Board member.
  • Minor updates (broken link fixes, typo corrections, small clarifications) do not update the review date but are logged internally.
  • New evidence that changes patient-relevant conclusions triggers a review outside the schedule.

Corrections Policy

If we get something wrong, we want to know and we want to fix it. Our approach:

  • Substantive errors (a claim that is inaccurate or misleading) are corrected as soon as we can confirm the correction is itself accurate. The article's "Last reviewed" date is updated.
  • Significant substantive corrections — the kind that would materially change a patient's understanding — are noted at the end of the affected article, dated and briefly described.
  • Typos and minor stylistic corrections are made without a note.
  • If you think something is wrong, please contact us at the email below with the specific claim, the specific concern, and any source that supports the correction. We take these seriously and respond to every substantive report.

Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions — what we cover, how we cover it, what we recommend or do not recommend — are made by our editorial team and reviewed by our Medical Review Board. No advertiser, sponsor, or third party has editorial input.

Specifically:

  • We do not accept payment in exchange for coverage, positive framing, or omission of information.
  • We do not receive booking commissions or referral fees from surgeons, hospitals, or medical tourism operators.
  • Our editorial calendar is set by us, based on patient search demand and information gaps — not by any external party.
  • Any potential conflict of interest is either disclosed or the coverage is not published.

The site is operated on a small, sustainable footing by its editorial team. We may in future accept clearly-labelled display advertising on non-clinical pages if we can do so without compromising editorial independence; that would be disclosed on this page.

Not Medical Advice

The content on BestPlasticSurgeryClinic.us is for informational purposes only and is not a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always seek the advice of a qualified physician — most usefully, a board-certified plastic surgeon in your jurisdiction — with any questions you may have regarding a medical condition or a decision about surgery.

Never disregard professional medical advice or delay seeking it because of something you have read on this site. If you think you are experiencing a medical emergency, contact your surgeon, call 911 (US) / 112 (EU/Turkey), or go directly to your local emergency department.

Contact Us

Editorial & corrections: If you believe an article contains an inaccuracy, or you have a source that would improve one, please email info@bestplasticsurgeryclinic.us with the specific concern and, where possible, the supporting source.

Medical review inquiries: Qualified plastic surgeons interested in reviewer roles can contact us via the same address.

General questions: For general reader questions, we cannot provide personal medical advice, but we are happy to hear suggestions for topics we should cover.