Every medical claim on this site links to its source: a study, a clinical guideline, or a health authority, with the year attached. Where the evidence is thin or credible guidance disagrees, I say so, rather than smoothing it into one tidy number. My own experience is kept separate from the research, and marked as mine.
That’s the whole policy.
What counts as a source here
- Peer-reviewed research, linked to the study itself rather than to somebody’s write-up of it. If the research was only done on mice and not humans, it’s stated.
- Clinical guidelines from the bodies that write them: ACOG, RCOG, NICE, the NHS, The Menopause Society, SOGC.
- Government health authorities, including the FDA, Health Canada, and provincial health services.
For anything you might act on, two independent sources. One study that found something interesting is a starting point. It doesn’t mean it’s settled.
What never counts
Other blogs. Telehealth companies whose advice pages end at their own checkout. Supplement sellers. Influencers. When another site comes up here, it’s because I’m examining what it published, never because I’m relying on it.
Every number carries its year
Recovery research and hormone research both move. When I went through the biggest sites in this niche, the most common thing I found was a decade-old study presented as current knowledge, with nothing on the page to tell a reader how old it was. Study years and guideline dates appear in the text here, so you can weigh a 2024 guideline against a 2011 study yourself.
Newer usually wins. Where an older study is still the definitive work on a question, it stays, and the reason is stated.
When the guidance disagrees
It disagrees a lot. UK guidance and US guidance give systematically different numbers for driving, lifting, sex, baths, and going back to work. Canada has no current national convention to fall back on: the SOGC’s hysterectomy guideline dates to 2002 and was written for clinicians, and a lot of the provincial patient material, including HealthLink BC and MyHealth Alberta, is licensed from Healthwise, a US publisher.
So the rule on this site is one range per milestone, with both ends attributed:
- No averaging. Splitting the difference between two guidelines produces a number no medical body anywhere actually recommends.
- No single country’s number presented as the number.
- Safety thresholds are the exception. For anything in the get-help-now category, the most protective credible source wins, and the range doesn’t get a vote.
- Your surgeon’s instruction sits above all of it, and that line appears next to the numbers rather than in the fine print.
Explaining why sources disagree takes more words than quoting one of them. It’s the reason a lot of women get told two different things and assume one of them must be a mistake.
Where the evidence is thin
A fair amount of what women want to know about life after a hysterectomy has been poorly studied, particularly weight change, and particularly for women who kept their ovaries. When the research is thin, mixed, or based on populations that don’t look much like the woman reading, you’ll hear that from me.
Expect to read “we don’t know yet” here. For some of these questions it’s the only truthful answer anyone has.
My experience is labelled as mine
I had a hysterectomy. Where that’s relevant, I write about it in the first person, and it needs no citation, because it’s an account of what happened to me.
It’s also not evidence. “This happened to me” and “this happens to women” are two different sentences with two different obligations, and they never get blurred together on the same page. Where an article rests on research, it’s research and it’s linked. Where it’s my experience, I say so, and it stands only for itself.
How the tools are built
The interactive tools run on the same sourced material as the articles, assembled around your answers. Every tool carries a “sources and assumptions” panel that names the guidance behind each number, so you can see where any figure came from rather than taking my word for it.
The tools calculate in your browser. Your answers aren’t sent anywhere, aren’t stored, and aren’t visible to me.
None of them diagnoses anything. Where a tool produces a checklist or a symptom summary, it produces no score, because no checklist score confirms or rules out anything on its own.
Who writes this
I write everything on this site. There’s no content team and no rotating cast of freelancers, and the byline is always mine.
What you get instead is every medical statement traced back to people who are qualified, named and dated, so you can go and read them yourself.
Corrections
Nobody writing about a moving field gets everything right forever. When something here is wrong, I want to know. If a claim is out of date, badly sourced, or flat wrong, tell me. Corrections get made, and anything substantive gets noted on the page with the date it changed.
Update dates on this site are real. A page’s date changes when the content changes.
Where money enters, and what it doesn’t buy
This site earns through affiliate links, which means a commission if you buy something through a link here. Where a page carries them, I say so at the top, before you read the recommendation rather than after.
What that never changes:
- A product gets recommended because it earns the recommendation. If nothing in a category is worth your money, the article says so.
- Advice articles are written exactly as they would be with no money involved. The evidence gets read first and the conclusion gets written before any link goes near the page.
- Treatments that come with a commission, including HRT and weight-loss medication, get the same evenhanded treatment as everything else: who it suits, who it doesn’t, what it costs you, and what the alternatives are.
- Nothing is held back, thinned out, or gated to push you toward a paid anything.
Full detail: affiliate disclosure.
Last updated: August 19, 2026
See also: medical disclaimer · privacy policy