1. Why there are no rankings here
A ranked list of clinics or products implies that each entry was assessed against a consistent standard. Most published rankings in this field are assembled from marketing material, review scores and commercial relationships, and calling that an assessment misrepresents it.
Our position is that publishing the criteria is more useful than publishing a list. A reader who knows what to check can assess a provider we have never heard of. A reader handed a list can only assess the providers on it.
2. Criteria for a clinic or practitioner
In order of importance, and every one of these is verifiable by a member of the public.
- The treating individual on a public register. Full name and registration number, checked on the General Medical Council, Nursing and Midwifery Council, General Dental Council or General Pharmaceutical Council register.
- The prescribing arrangement. Who prescribes, and do they assess the patient in person.
- The premises and its regulatory position. Registration with the Care Quality Commission or the equivalent body in the devolved nations where the activity is regulated, and any local authority licence.
- The consent process. Written information, discussion of what the treatment will not achieve, alternatives including doing nothing, and a cooling off period between consultation and treatment.
- The complication protocol. Named complications, a written protocol, out of hours contact, and for filler treatments whether hyaluronidase is held on site and who is trained to use it.
- Indemnity insurance. Held, and for the specific procedures offered.
- Advertising compliance. No prescription only medicine named in consumer advertising, no pressure selling, no guaranteed outcomes.
The applied version of this, with the disqualifying signals, is in assessing an aesthetic clinic.
3. Criteria for a product claim
- Is the mechanism named? A claim that describes an outcome without naming how it is produced cannot be assessed.
- Is the active ingredient stated, and at what concentration? Concentration determines effect and is frequently withheld.
- What is the regulatory category? Cosmetic, medical device, food supplement and licensed medicine carry very different evidentiary bars, and a product will not usually volunteer which it is.
- Has the effect been shown in people, on skin? A laboratory assay is not a clinical result.
- Over what period, and to what degree? A change described without a timescale or a magnitude is not a finding.
- Who funded the evidence, and has anyone independent replicated it?
- What is the adverse effect profile, and who should not use it? A product with no stated cautions is usually a product with no meaningful activity, or one that is not saying.
4. Criteria for a marketing claim
Three tests dispose of most of what circulates in this category.
The substitution test. Replace the branded term with the mechanism. If "advanced peptide complex" becomes "some peptides", and the sentence stops making a claim, there was no claim.
The falsifiability test. Could this claim be shown to be wrong? "Reduces the appearance of fine lines" as usually deployed cannot be, because the appearance is not measured and the reduction is not quantified.
The regulator test. Would this claim survive scrutiny by the Advertising Standards Authority? Its rulings are published and searchable, and a brand's history there is a matter of public record.
5. How we describe evidence
We describe evidence qualitatively and never invent specifics. The vocabulary we use consistently:
| Phrase | What it means here |
|---|---|
| Well established | Multiple independent controlled human studies, consistent in direction, with replication outside the funding party |
| Reasonable evidence | Several controlled human studies, typically small, short or narrow in who was studied |
| Limited evidence | Human evidence exists but is thin, single site, or leaning on laboratory and animal work |
| Not established | Little or no controlled human evidence for the claim as made. Biologically plausible is not the same as demonstrated |
| Contested | Genuine disagreement in the literature, which we state rather than resolve |
6. The affiliate condition
This site carries no affiliate links. That is the current position and it is stated on every page in the footer and on the about page.
If affiliate links are ever introduced, they will be governed by a single rule: a link may appear only inside a category assessment carried out against the criteria above, published alongside the assessment, and labelled at the point of the link. A category we have not assessed will not carry one, and no individual product will be linked outside an assessment. Where an assessment carries affiliate links, the page will carry a disclosure block at the top rather than in a footnote, naming the arrangement.
The reason for setting the condition now rather than later is that the condition is worth more written down before there is money attached to it.
7. What sponsorship does not buy
Sponsorship funds this publication and is described in full on the sponsorship page. It buys a labelled position. It does not buy assessment against these criteria, inclusion in any list, a mention in an article, a link inside editorial, or sight of anything before publication. Those are not negotiable and they are not priced.