Home › Methodology

Methodology

How we build a criteria-based comparison — the fields we record, where the data comes from, and how we mark what we could not verify.

Quick answer

Every clinic is recorded against the same fixed fields — legal name, city, authorisation and accreditation, languages, public rating and price transparency — taken from public sources and dated. Anything that could not be verified is marked unverified rather than estimated or guessed. No clinic pays to be included, ordered or ranked.

Our goal is a like-for-like comparison, not a ranking of “the best” clinic. We do not describe any provider as best, top, leading or number one. Instead we record the same public, checkable facts for each clinic so a reader can weigh them against their own priorities.

The criteria we record

Where the data comes from

Every recorded field is drawn from a source a reader could check independently:

We do not use private data, patient records, or information supplied by clinics in exchange for placement. Where a source is a specific page, we cite it.

How we handle data we could not verify

If we cannot independently confirm a field from a public source at the time of compiling, we mark it data pending verification instead of estimating or filling it in. Rating and review figures in particular change frequently, and automated collection can be blocked, so an unverified label is common and honest — not a gap we paper over.

Why the labelling matters. An empty or guessed number is worse than an honest “not verified.” The label tells you exactly which figures still need a direct check before you rely on them.

Dating and re-verification

Each comparison table shows a last verified date. Public ratings, review counts and even branch locations move over time, so we treat each table as a dated snapshot. We recommend confirming any figure directly with the clinic before making a decision, and we re-review tables periodically.

Which clinics are included (the Clinic Finder)

Our Clinic Finder lists clinics against a single, published inclusion standard — applied equally to every clinic, with no hand-picking and no payment for placement. A clinic appears only if it:

Every clinic that meets this bar is shown, ordered by a published weighted score that combines the public Google rating with review volume, so that a 5.0 from twelve reviewers does not outrank a 4.8 from three thousand. The formula is (v × R + 50 × 4.5) ÷ (v + 50), where R is the public rating and v the review count. It is arithmetic applied identically to every clinic, not a judgement of quality by us, and no clinic can pay to move within it. The public Google rating is displayed as a factual, dated third-party figure, not our own assessment.

How the data is collected. Google ratings and review counts are read from each clinic's public Google Maps listing and matched to the clinic by name. Treatments offered and languages spoken are taken from each clinic's own website where stated. Fields we could not confirm are left blank rather than guessed. Data is dated and re-checked periodically; always confirm current details directly with the clinic. For aggregate figures across all listed clinics, see our 2026 Google vs Trustpilot ratings study.

What we deliberately exclude

These exclusions keep the guide comparative and factual, and align with health-service advertising rules that restrict promotional and superlative content in this field.

Corrections

If a clinic or reader believes a recorded fact is out of date or wrong, we welcome a correction with a public source. See About & editorial policy for how to reach us.

Sources & further reading

Independent, non-commercial sources for the regulatory and clinical background on this page. We link to primary bodies rather than to clinics. Last checked 26 July 2026.

Note. This methodology describes how information is organised and presented. It is not clinical guidance. Accreditation, registration and pricing must always be confirmed directly with the provider and the relevant authority.