Editorial Policy

Who writes and reviews this content

Every article, guide, and clinical tool on this site is written and reviewed by me, Dr. Muhammad Khalid. I am a specialist urologist: MBBS, FCPS (Urology), MCPS (General Surgery), CHPE, CRSM, with over 11 years of postgraduate hospital practice covering ureteroscopy, percutaneous nephrolithotomy, retrograde intrarenal surgery, TURP, TURBT, and open urological surgery.

There is no anonymous writing team here and no outsourced content. That is deliberate. A single named clinician who can be verified on a public register is accountable in a way that a byline reading “Medical Team” is not.

My registrations and qualifications are listed with direct verification links on the About page, and my peer-reviewed publications are listed there with DOIs. My research identifier is ORCID 0000-0002-4326-9996.

How sources are chosen

Clinical claims on this site are built from named primary sources, in this order of preference. Where a higher-ranked source addresses the question, it takes precedence over anything below it.

1. American Urological Association (AUA) guidelines
2. European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines
3. NICE guidance
4. NIDDK and other NIH institutes
5. Cochrane systematic reviews
6. Peer-reviewed, DOI-indexed primary research
7. World Health Organization
8. NHS and equivalent national bodies, for patient-facing context only

The audience here is international, with most readers in the United States. Where American and European guidance differ meaningfully, I say so rather than quietly picking one.

Rules I hold myself to

• No claim attributed to “studies” or “research” without naming the study or guideline body in the same sentence
• No citation of a superseded guideline as though it were current. Where I cite an older document, the year is stated so you can check it yourself
• No reference included that I have not read and verified resolves
• Statistics carry their source and their population. A figure from a US cohort is not presented as a global rate
• Where evidence is genuinely contested, the article says so instead of manufacturing a clean answer

How content is kept current

Urology guidance changes. The AUA released a new kidney stone guideline in July 2026 and a three-part benign prostatic hyperplasia guideline in May 2026; both replaced documents that had been standard for years. Content that cites a superseded guideline is not merely dated, it can be wrong.

Three things trigger a review:

• A guideline update from the AUA, EAU, or NICE in a topic this site covers. Affected articles and tools are audited against the new document and revised
• Substantial new trial evidence that changes what a patient should reasonably do, not merely what is interesting to specialists
• A scheduled check, so that pages nobody has flagged do not quietly rot

Every article displays a “last updated” date in its header. That date reflects when the clinical content was last reviewed, not when a typo was fixed or an image was swapped.

Corrections

What happens next: I check the claim against primary sources. If it is wrong, I correct it and update the review date. If the error was material, meaning it could have changed what a reader decided to do, the correction is noted on the page itself rather than silently patched. If I disagree with the report, I will tell you why.

I would rather be corrected by a reader than leave a mistake sitting in front of the next ten thousand.

How this content is produced

Research assistance and drafting tools, are used in the production of this site, in the same way most publishers now use them. What they are not used for is clinical judgment. Every claim, recommendation, reference, and number is checked by me against primary sources before publication, and I am responsible for all of it.

I mention this because the alternative, saying nothing and letting you assume, is the sort of omission this page exists to prevent. The relevant question is not whether software touched a draft. It is whether a named clinician who can be held accountable stands behind the finished page. I do.

Advertising, affiliates, and independence

This site carries display advertising and, on a small number of pages, affiliate links. That is how it pays for hosting and stays free to read. Some things follow from that, and you should know them:

• Advertisers have no input into what is published here, no advance sight of content, and no ability to have anything removed or softened
• Ads are served programmatically. I do not choose which specific advertisers appear, and an ad appearing next to an article is not an endorsement of that product by me
• Pages containing affiliate links carry a disclosure at the top. Full terms are on the affiliate disclosure page
• No product is recommended here because of a commission. Where I recommend against something popular, that recommendation stands whether or not it costs revenue
• This site accepts no funding from pharmaceutical companies, device manufacturers, or clinics, and publishes no sponsored articles or paid guest posts

What this site is not

The purpose of everything published here is to help you walk into your own appointment knowing what to ask and what the answers mean. It is not to substitute for that appointment.

See also the full medical disclaimer and privacy policy.