How we measure
This is a trust register: we verify structural facts of trust, not procedure outcomes. Each clinic gets an open profile across 12 axes on one public ruler. No hidden scores and no hand-placed ranks — the Transparency Index composite is computed from published weights.
The gate — who enters the register
We list a clinic if it can be identified correctly and it is operating. A missing public doctor name is not grounds to exclude (Unknown ≠ fault): such a clinic is listed with a flag but does not receive the "injectables" segment crown. A crown for any segment is available only with a register-verified licence.
- Clinic licensed — clinic licence (สถานพยาบาล) — stated or verified in the Ministry of Health register
- Doctor traceable — a named doctor, verifiable in the Medical Council (checkmd)
- In register scope — medical / aesthetic cosmetology — within the register's scope
- Clinic operating — the clinic is genuinely operating and reachable for booking
Why these axes
Every axis passes three sieves: buyer relevance, verifiability against a public source, and robustness to confounds (brand size, site age, ad budget).
- Buyer-relevant. The axis answers a real patient question: is the clinic licensed, who is the doctor, what is the product, how much does it cost.
- Checkable. The value can be re-checked against a source — the Ministry of Health register, the Medical Council, the clinic's page, a distributor.
- Robust to confounds. The heavy axes do not reward fame; a small clinic with a transparent licence and a named doctor beats a large opaque one.
The twelve axes
Nine measured (76%) and three editorial (24%). Each runs 1 to 5; the composite is normalised over the covered axes and mapped to 0–100.
| Axis | What the axis checks | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| M1 · Clinic licence | Does the clinic hold a สถานพยาบาล licence and have we verified it in the Ministry of Health register. A published number + confirmation = top of the scale. | 13% |
| M2 · Doctor traceability | Is a doctor named and verifiable in the Medical Council. Especially important for injectables; a missing name is not an accusation but a lack of traceability. | 13% |
| M3 · Service specificity | How specifically the services are described, rather than a generic marketing menu. | 6% |
| M4 · Product disclosure | Are injectable product brands named and an authenticity policy disclosed. "Genuine" with no verifiable proof is only a claim. | 8% |
| M5 · Device traceability | Are specific device models named (not "laser" in general). External device verification is rare and not required. | 8% |
| M6 · Price transparency | Are real prices published. Marketplace-only prices (GoWabi) are a secondary source with a short freshness window. | 10% |
| M7 · Russian-language path | Is there a real Russian-language patient path: a page, a coordinator, service information and aftercare in Russian. | 6% |
| M8 · Source readability | Is the source machine-readable and reproducible for a re-audit. | 5% |
| M9 · Safety disclosure | Are consent, contraindications and aftercare published. Disclosure ≠ real safety, but its absence is a signal. | 7% |
| E1 · Cleanliness of promises | Cleanliness of promises. A bright line ("100% safe", "forever", an outcome guarantee, before/after as proof) can trigger the cap. | 12% |
| E2 · Consistency of facts | Consistency of the public record; conflicting values are critical and are logged. | 7% |
| E3 · Reputation hygiene | Reputation hygiene: reviews don't count as proof of quality; a public correction mechanism is valued. | 5% |
How the axes are weighted
The heavy axes are the ones that are buyer-predictive, checkable and little exposed to confounds: licence and doctor (13 each), prices (10). The light ones are where the risk of a brand- or budget-proxy is high: source readability (5), reputation (5).
Measured axes sum to 76, editorial to 24. The Transparency Index composite = the weighted average of the covered axes, mapped to 0–100. Below 60% coverage the composite is not published.
Harmful-promise cap (red-flag cap)
A proven, specific harm — an outcome guarantee, "100% safe", "no side effects", passing before/after photos off as clinical proof, a fake licence or product — caps the composite from above (a cap of 20–65 out of 100 by severity). "We couldn't find the licence" is not a red flag; a red flag requires an official contradiction or a proven fact, not a rumour.
The focus penalty
If cosmetology is not the clinic's core but a secondary add-on of a spa or salon, the composite takes a fixed penalty. Clinics with a medical core take no penalty. The classification is observable and applied to all alike.
- medical aesthetics — the clinic's core: 0
- aesthetics inside a general clinic: −5
- cosmetology as a spa / café add-on: −10
Reproducible by design
Each cell carries a source class (OFFICIAL / SECONDARY / UNVERIFIED) and a date. A score without a source is impossible: "not found" is an empty value with text, not a guess. Any external auditor can repeat the check against the same public sources. We accept edits from clinics only with a source link; we show the clinic's response alongside, but we don't change the score without a source.