How we review and verify content

Limb lengthening is a six-figure, year-long decision, and most of the information patients find about it is marketing. So “trust us” isn’t good enough. This page sets out exactly how every clinical claim on this directory is checked before it is published — and, just as importantly, where that process stops.

The short version

Before any page that discusses methods, outcomes, risks, recovery, or cost is published, it passes through a structured, multi-pass verification process. Each pass examines the content from a different angle, and a claim has to survive all of them. A human editor then signs off on what ships.

We are transparent about how this works: the verification passes are AI-assisted. They are not a panel of physicians, and we will never present them as one. What they are is a consistent, repeatable check that catches the failures that sink most health content — unsourced claims, missing risk disclosures, stale prices, and quiet commercial bias.

The verification passes

Each clinical page is checked, independently, against the following before it can be published:

• Source & citation.Every factual claim about efficacy, safety, or complication rates is traced to a primary source — peer-reviewed literature, a regulatory body, or a hospital’s own published data. Unsourced assertions are flagged and do not ship.
• Risk completeness. Content that names a treatment is checked for whether it also discloses the relevant complication rates, recovery burden, and contraindications. Upside-only descriptions are sent back.
• Regulatory & legal status.Device approval status (FDA / CE), a clinic’s regulatory standing, and travel or sanctions caveats are verified against current public records.
• Commercial bias. Wording is checked for pay-for-placement language, promotional framing, or anything that reads like an advertisement rather than a neutral assessment.
• Currency. Prices, device availability, surgeon affiliations, and dates are checked against the most recent information available and flagged when they go stale.
• Internal consistency. Claims are cross-checked against the rest of the site, so a figure on one page cannot quietly contradict another.

Human editorial accountability

Automated verification decides what gets flagged; a human editor decides what gets published. Final responsibility for the content on this site rests with its independent editorial operation — not with any clinic, device manufacturer, or advertiser. When a reader reports an error, a person reads it and acts on it.

What this is not

• Not a clinical consultation. Our process confirms that what we publish is sourced and current. It cannot assess your individual case. Only a board-certified surgeon who has examined you can do that.
• Not medical advice. This directory is editorial reporting. See our medical disclaimer.
• Not influenced by payment. No clinic can buy a listing, a ranking, or a change to what we write about it. See our editorial policy.

Found something wrong?

If any clinical claim, price, or clinic detail on this site is inaccurate or out of date, tell us — we would rather fix it than defend it. Email [email protected] with the page URL, or use the contact page. Material corrections are logged with a dated note on the affected page.