How we measure
This is a positive-verification trust register: we verify structural facts of trust, not clinical outcomes. Each clinic gets an open profile across 10 axes on one public ruler. No hidden scores and no hand-placed ranks — the Trust 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, it delivers the medical or aesthetic care in Bangkok (not just booking), and it is operating. If a clinic publishes no name for its responsible doctor, we cannot verify who is accountable: it is listed in a "verification unavailable" state, not scored as bad. A missing name is a coverage statement about us, not an accusation about the clinic — and the clinic can supply the name at any time.
- Live public surface + working Bangkok contact (as of date) — the clinic is genuinely operating and its Bangkok public surface and contact are reachable
- Offers aesthetic / medical clinic services in Bangkok, not a bare aggregator — the entity actually offers aesthetic or medical clinic services in Bangkok — not a marketplace, affiliate or booking aggregator
- Named, identifiable responsible doctor published — a named, identifiable responsible doctor is published, so their Thailand Medical Council (TMC) registration can be checked
- In scope (aesthetic / medical clinic in Bangkok) — aesthetic or medical clinic services in Bangkok — within the register's scope
Why these axes
Every axis passes three sieves: patient relevance, verifiability against a public source, and robustness to confounds (brand size, SEO, domain age, a foreign phone number).
- Patient-relevant. The axis answers a real question: is the responsible doctor actually registered with the Thailand Medical Council, does the operating location resolve to a live MOPH facility licence, which legal entity (a registered Thai DBD company) is liable if something fails, and does the clinic describe its credentials and follow-up honestly before I decide?
- Checkable. The value can be re-checked against a public source — chiefly the TMC register (checkmd.tmc.or.th), which returns a doctor's registration by name or number; the MOPH licensed-facility register; independently verifiable facility accreditation (HA / JCI / AACI); the Thai DBD company register; and the clinic's own published legal and consent terms.
- Robust to confounds. The heavy axes do not reward fame, a big review count or a slick site: a TMC-registered, identifiable doctor on a MOPH-licensed facility with honest advertising beats an anonymous "our team" front behind a medical-tourism package.
The ten axes
Seven measured (80%) and three editorial (20%). Each runs 1 to 5; the composite is the weighted average over the axes with a value, mapped to 0–100.
| Axis | What the axis checks | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| M1 · MOPH clinic-licence verifiability | Can the specific operating location be tied to a live record in the MOPH licensed-facility register — by name, address, licence number and status — and does the clinic make that check easy? This measures the availability and accuracy of the confirmation, not a verdict on legality; we never assert "licensed" or "unlicensed". | 10% |
| M2 · Named responsible doctor + TMC registration | Is there a specific, individually identifiable doctor whom the clinic publicly ties to this operating unit, and is that doctor's medical registration confirmed in the Thailand Medical Council register (checkmd.tmc.or.th)? This is the deterministic spine of the register. We verify that the person and their registration exist; the TMC confirms registration, not current employment, specialty, board certification or quality. | 24% |
| M3 · Licence-number / credential disclosure | Does the clinic itself publish the identifiers that let a reader re-check — full doctor names, TMC numbers, the MOPH number, and specific board or society credentials with an issuer? The axis rewards disclosure; an absent number is never treated as proof of an absent licence. | 12% |
| M4 · Independently verifiable facility accreditation (HA/JCI/AACI) | Is there a publicly verifiable facility accreditation through HA, JCI or AACI, with a clear scope? Professional memberships, awards, a foreign-clinic partnership and "international standards" wording are not equivalent to facility accreditation, and its absence is never treated as adverse. | 6% |
| M5 · Legal-entity traceability (DBD) | Is there a registered legal entity behind the clinic, tied to the brand and the specific location in the Thai DBD company register — a traceable operator, not just a brand name and a phone number? We assess disclosure and checkability of who is legally liable, not financial health. | 8% |
| M6 · Patient documentary transparency (risks, consent, terms) | Before you send a lead, are substantive documents published — procedure scope, candidacy and limitations, risks, informed-consent information, safety, aftercare, privacy and terms with a correction/complaint path? We measure the disclosed structure, not its real enforcement or the clinical outcome. | 8% |
| M7 · Advertising honesty | A reproducible profile of the clinic's own claims: no guaranteed or inevitable results, no unconditional superlatives without a named basis, before/after not presented as an expected outcome, accreditation / specialty / product claims carried with an issuer and scope, and no material conflict between the EN / TH / 中文 fronts. Every low score rests on an exact quote, URL, locale and date; we do not declare a legal breach. | 12% |
| E1 · EN/TH/中文 cross-front consistency | Do the facts agree across the site's EN / TH / 中文 versions — the doctor, the MOPH and TMC identifiers, the entity, the accreditation scope and the claims reading the same in every language, with no claim that appears on one front and vanishes on another? | 8% |
| E2 · Decision-path clarity | Decision-path clarity — can a reader, before contact, tell which specific unit and which named doctor stand behind the offer, what the consultation involves, where the limits and aftercare are, and how to reach or correct? Price is only a small component; "price at consultation" is a neutral industry pattern, not an automatic mark against. | 6% |
| E3 · Public-claim sourcing discipline | Public-claim sourcing discipline — how well the clinic separates verifiable facts from marketing wording and gives provenance for material claims: a named issuer, identifier, scope, date and a re-check path. It assesses the quality of attribution on the clinic's own surface, not the facts already counted under TMC, MOPH or accreditation. | 6% |
How the axes are weighted
The heaviest axis is the named responsible doctor and TMC registration (24): it is the only individually identifiable, officially verifiable class that applies equally to a standalone clinic, a chain and a hospital wing — the register's core question, who medically stands behind this location. Licence-number / credential disclosure (12) and advertising honesty (12) come next; MOPH clinic-licence verifiability is a lighter gate (10 — a base structure with less spread once you are past it, though the gate matters more than its number); the legal entity / Thai DBD (8), documentary transparency (8) and cross-front consistency (8) carry the middle; facility accreditation is a light 6 — real, but it clusters at hospital wings and partly measures format, not a specific doctor's transparency.
Measured axes sum to 80, editorial to 20 — EN/TH/中文 cross-front consistency (8), decision-path clarity (6) and public-claim sourcing discipline (6). The Trust Index = the weighted average of the axes that carry a value, mapped to 0–100. Below 80% coverage the composite is not published (verification pending); a provisional profile is shown without a rank.
The soft verification hold
There is no adverse spine here: this is a positive-verification register, so we build no name-searchable index of disciplined doctors or sanctioned clinics and never score against one. A hold is a neutral statement about verifiability, never a disciplinary or quality accusation. A limited, clearly described gap that does not change the doctor's identity or the licensed unit (H1) caps the composite at 84. A material structural conflict (H2) — for example a legal operator that cannot be tied to the brand after a full Thai DBD pass, or fronts that materially disagree on accreditation scope, operator or a result claim while the unit's MOPH/TMC identity still holds — caps the composite at 69, in the partial-verification band, after a right of reply. If the responsible doctor cannot be identified or resolved in the TMC register (H3), the composite is withheld and the profile is unranked with a neutral note. "Not found" is never rendered as proven absence, and every hold carries a source, a date and an invitation to reply.
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 TMC register name-search (checkmd.tmc.or.th) and the MOPH facility lookup and re-read the same public terms. We accept edits from clinics only with a source link; we show the clinic's reply alongside, but we don't change a score without a source.