How we measure
This is a trust register: we verify structural facts of trust, not treatment outcomes. Each clinic gets an open profile across 10 axes on one public ruler. No hidden scores and no hand-placed ranks — the Transparency Index composite is computed from published weights. We take no money from clinics, never book or refer, and every clinic has a right of reply.
The gate — who enters the register
We list a clinic if it can be identified correctly and it is operating. A missing operating-doctor name is not grounds to exclude (Unknown ≠ fault): such a clinic is listed with a flag but does not receive the "named-specialist" crown. A crown for a licence-gated segment is available only with a registry-verified DHA or DHCC licence.
- Facility licensed (DHA/DHCC) — facility licence — held in the correct regulator: DHA for mainland Dubai, or DHCC / DHCR for a free-zone clinic
- Named specialist / consultant — a named operating doctor whose Specialist / Consultant title is discoverable in the DHA Medical Directory
- In register scope — cosmetic / plastic surgery or aesthetic dermatology — 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, celebrity, ad budget).
- Buyer-relevant. The axis answers a real patient question: is the doctor licensed to this grade, is the facility licensed, do the board-certification claims check out, is the advertising compliant, who is actually accountable for the procedure.
- Checkable. The value can be re-checked against a source — the DHA Medical Directory and Sheryan licence lookup, the DHCC / DHCR pathway, the EBOPRAS Fellows list, JCI's accredited-organisations directory, the clinic's own pages.
- Robust to confounds. The heavy axes do not reward fame; a small named-Consultant-led clinic with a verified licence beats a large opaque celebrity-brand front.
The ten axes
Six measured (82%) and four editorial (18%). 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 · Doctor's credential & title tier | Is the operating doctor a DHA/DHCC-licensed Specialist or Consultant — not a GP or a marketing title — name-discoverable in the DHA Medical Directory and matched to the marketed procedure and facility. A named, verifiable Consultant = top of the scale. | 24% |
| M2 · Facility licence & regulator fit | Does the clinic hold a valid facility licence in the correct regulator — DHA for mainland Dubai, DHCC / DHCR for a free-zone clinic. Being inside DHCC flips the regulator; it is not a missing licence. | 16% |
| M3 · Board / specialist certification | Are board / specialist / JCI / EBOPRAS certification claims verified at the issuing body — the EBOPRAS Fellows list, JCI's directory — not just a logo on the clinic's page. We score verified, never merely claimed. | 12% |
| M4 · Advertising compliance | Is the clinic's advertising compliant: a real, DHA-verifiable licence number on the material, licence-matching titles, and no prohibited 'guaranteed result', comparative or 'No. 1' claims. We score the presence of the claim, never the outcome. | 12% |
| M5 · Surgeon accountability | Is the operating clinician individually named and accountable for the procedure, rather than hidden behind a celebrity, brand or franchise front. | 12% |
| M6 · Price / process transparency | Are real prices and the planning process published (itemised, ranges, inclusions) rather than 'free consultation' or 'from AED' deal pricing only — read together with surgeon accountability, not alone. | 6% |
| E1 · Practice continuity | Practice continuity — is there an accountable clinical entity and continuity, or is the public face a celebrity / brand with the operating clinician not individually attributable. | 6% |
| E2 · Claim cleanliness | Claim cleanliness — are public promises bounded and honest, with no 'No. 1', guarantee, or false trust badge. | 6% |
| E3 · International-patient pathway | International-patient pathway clarity — coordinator, languages, medical intake, consent, remote follow-up — not just a travel package. | 4% |
| E4 · Regulator-zone honesty | Regulator-zone honesty — do the clinic's DHA / DHCC / MOHAP claims map to the correct legal entity and emirate / zone. | 2% |
How the axes are weighted
The heavy axes are buyer-predictive, checkable and little exposed to confounds: the operating doctor's credential and title tier (24) and the facility licence (16) — who really holds the scalpel, to what grade, and in which regulator. The light ones are where a brand- or budget-proxy risk is high: price (6), international-patient path (4), regulator-zone honesty (2).
Measured axes sum to 82, editorial to 18. The Transparency Index = the weighted average of the covered axes, mapped to 0–100. Below 75% coverage the composite is not published (insufficient verified data).
The red-flag cap
A clinic-specific, sourced structural harm caps the composite from above: an unresolved claim-vs-issuer mismatch (max 75), a formal advertising penalty or documented use of an off-licence medical title (max 60), an active licence suspension / cancellation or a confirmed non-specialist operator (max 45), or a court / regulator malpractice finding (held for legal review). "We couldn't confirm a licence" is not a red flag; a cap requires a clinic-specific official source, right-of-reply is offered, and negative wording is reviewed by counsel before publication. Market-level facts are never pinned to a named clinic.
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 reply alongside, but we don't change the score without a source.