In my work as a medical specialist, care, preparation and constant checking are simply part of the job. I bring that same attitude to what I write here.
This website is not about my work. It is about sleep, habits, health and the way we look at ourselves. Prevention is what I care about most: preventing is easier than curing. That is why I would rather give you deep knowledge in plain language than a handful of tips – knowledge that helps you weigh information and recognise patterns.
That only works if you know where that knowledge comes from, how the research was carried out, and how strong the evidence really is. On this page I explain how I choose, check and cite my sources.
Why there is a list under my articles
Because you should be able to check whether it holds up.
The internet is full of health advice that sounds convincing and rests on nothing. Usually without any bad intent: someone reads something, repeats it, and ten articles later it has become a fact without anyone ever having looked at the research. I don’t want to be part of that.
So when I write that something works a certain way, you can see where I got it. You don’t have to take my word for it. You can look for yourself.
Why I cite by author and year
Medical literature often uses a numbered citation style: a number in the running text, and a numbered list at the end. That is efficient in journals with strict word limits, but for you as a reader such a number is empty.
That is why this site uses APA style. A citation such as (Gilovich et al., 2000) shows you who the first author is, that several authors were involved, and the year the research was published. The title of the study and the remaining publication details are in the reference list at the end of the article.
The year is context, not a verdict. Older research is not automatically outdated, and recent research is not automatically stronger. The year only tells you when something was studied — what it is worth depends on the design of the study and on what has been found since.
Why I add a DOI
When a publication has a DOI, I include it as a clickable link starting with https://doi.org/.
A DOI is a permanent, unique identifier for a publication. Even when a journal changes publisher or web address, the DOI keeps pointing to the same publication. That lasts longer than an ordinary link, which can be dead within a few years.
What a DOI is not: a mark of quality. It says nothing about how the study was designed, and nothing about whether the conclusion holds. Where it takes you also varies: sometimes the full text, sometimes only an abstract, sometimes a paywall. That depends on the publisher, not on the source.
Before I add a source, I check that the DOI belongs to the right publication and that the link works.
What I use
- Research reviewed by other specialists before publication. Peer review is a filter, not a guarantee: reviewed research can still be weak, small or outdated.
- Systematic reviews and meta-analyses, when a topic has many separate studies and I want to know where the whole body of work lands.
- Clinical guidelines from professional bodies. These weigh the literature for you, and on health topics they are often a stronger source than a single study.
- Reports from scientific institutes and government organisations, such as the Dutch Health Council, RIVM or the WHO.
- Specialist books, for context and background. Less directly verifiable than an article with a DOI, so never the only support for a specific claim.
- Research whose design, results and limitations I can assess well enough. If I cannot, I don’t use it.
What I don’t use
- Retracted research as evidence. I may mention a retracted study when the retraction itself is the subject.
- A single small study as the only support for a large conclusion.
- A news item, blog or social media post in place of the original research.
- A source whose original publication I have not been able to read.
What a reference list is not
A list of references does not mean something is proven. It means research has been done, and that you can look at that research yourself.
Science changes. What we were certain of ten years ago, we are sometimes less certain of now. That is not a weakness of science — that is exactly how it works.
I don’t decide for you what you should do. I give you enough reliable information to choose for yourself. And the most important part: what you read here is general information, not personal medical advice. Please discuss personal health questions with your GP or the healthcare professional treating you.
Where I stand right now
This calls for an honest sentence. Everything above is the standard for what I write from now on, and for articles I revise. My older articles are being reviewed one by one. That takes time, and it is not finished.
I would rather promise you something small that is true than something large that isn’t. If you find something in an older article that doesn’t yet meet this standard, that is an article still waiting its turn.
If I miss something
Even careful work can miss things. If you spot an error, a broken link, or a conclusion that in your view doesn’t match the source, let me know through the contact page. I will check the report and correct the text where needed.