How we measure
This is a trust register: we verify structural facts — the presence or absence of documents in public registries as of a date — not clinical outcomes. Each clinic gets an open profile across 9 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 responsible-clinician name is not grounds to exclude (Unknown ≠ fault): such a clinic is listed with a flag but does not receive the "named-specialist" mark. For the surgery segment, a top place is possible only with a REPS-verified facility habilitación and a surgeon who is named and verifiable in RETHUS.
- Facility habilitación (REPS) — facility habilitación — verified in REPS (prestadores.minsalud.gov.co/habilitacion/), with the advertised service present in that sede's "servicios habilitados"
- Named clinician (RETHUS) — a named responsible clinician or surgeon, verifiable in RETHUS (web.sispro.gov.co), with no active sanction found
- Service in REPS scope — plastic / aesthetic surgery, aesthetic dermatology or aesthetic dentistry — 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, fame, ad budget).
- Buyer-relevant. The axis answers a real patient question: are the sede and the advertised service habilitados in REPS, is there a surgeon or clinician named and registered in RETHUS, do the specialist claims hold up, does the advertising stay within authorised scope, and who is actually accountable for the procedure.
- Checkable. The value can be re-checked against a source: REPS for facility and service habilitación, RETHUS for the clinician's registration and sanctions, the SCCP directory for plastic-surgery membership, RUES for the legal entity, and Supersalud as a hit search. Every cell carries a source and a date.
- Robust to confounds. The heavy axes do not reward fame: a small practice with a named, RETHUS-verifiable surgeon and a REPS-habilitado sede beats a large, opaque brand with a bigger ad budget.
The nine axes
Six measured (82%) and three 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 · Facility habilitación & service-legality (REPS) | Does the sede appear in REPS, and do the advertised services appear in its "servicios habilitados"? This is the backbone: the clinic's pages supply the advertised services, but REPS decides the match. For a practice operating at a host facility, we check that facility's habilitación, not just the surgeon's website. | 24% |
| M2 · Named operating clinician + RETHUS | Is the surgeon or clinician responsible for the advertised service named, and verifiable in RETHUS with no active ethical-disciplinary sanction? Naming an operator is not the same as being famous — it is structural accountability. A surgical menu with no named surgeon fails this axis. | 18% |
| M3 · Specialist certification (SCCP for surgery) | Does the specialist claim have a verifiable basis? For plastic / aesthetic surgery, SCCP membership (cirugiaplastica.org.co/buscar-cirujano/) is the primary proxy. For dermatology and dentistry we use RETHUS or the appropriate specialty source. We score what is verified at the issuing body, never a logo on the clinic's page. | 14% |
| M4 · Entity & regulatory footprint (RUES + Supersalud) | Can the real legal vehicle (entity, NIT, matrícula) be identified in RUES, and is there any current Supersalud hit that should be disclosed? A low-spread axis, useful mainly for identity matching. Absence of a Supersalud hit does not score; a hit does matter. | 8% |
| M5 · Advertising-claim integrity | Does the advertising stay within what is verifiable: services aligned with REPS, accreditations that are current or presented as claims, no "#1 / safest / guaranteed result" language, and no raffles or aggressive discounts? We score the presence of the claim, never the outcome. | 12% |
| M6 · Structural disclosure (price not rewarded) | How much verifiable structure does the clinic itself surface before the patient asks — named clinicians, sede, legal entity, habilitación references? Price does NOT score here: publishing no prices is not a penalty, and an SCCP surgeon with no headline prices can still score high if the clinical structure is clear. | 6% |
| E1 · Practice-continuity / real vehicle | Practice continuity: is there a real, continuous clinical entity, or is the public face a shell, a template, or a lead funnel where it cannot be told who actually delivers care? | 6% |
| E2 · Claim cleanliness | Claim cleanliness: are public promises bounded and honest, with no "#1", guarantees, false trust badges, or urgency / raffle hooks? | 7% |
| E3 · Honest international-patient pathway | International-patient pathway honesty: coordinator, languages, medical intake, consent, remote follow-up, and clarity about the facility and operator — not a travel package that hides clinical accountability. | 5% |
How the axes are weighted
The heavy axes are buyer-predictive, checkable and little exposed to confounds: facility and service habilitación in REPS (24) and the responsible surgeon with RETHUS registration (18) — where and with what service care is delivered, and who is accountable for it. REPS weighs most because it is the only "hard floor" that scales. The light axes are where the risk of rewarding brand or budget is highest: entity and regulatory footprint (8), structural disclosure (6), and international-patient pathway (5).
Measured axes sum to 82, editorial to 18. The Transparency Index is the weighted average of the covered axes, mapped to 0–100. Below 75% of the weight sourced, the index is marked provisional (insufficient verified data). Price is never a positive axis: it is context, and discounts, raffles or aggressive financing can lower M5 / E2 / E3, not raise them.
The red-flag cap
A clinic-specific, sourced structural harm caps the composite from above, with source and date: a material disclosure gap with no negative registry finding (max 88), a material claim that cannot be verified in the current source — a lapsed JCI / QUAD-A / Bureau Veritas accreditation, a "#1" with no issuer (max 78), a service or surgical menu that is not habilitado or has no named, verifiable surgeon (max 58), or a false identity, an active RETHUS / Supersalud sanction, or no REPS record while advertising healthcare (max 35). "We couldn't confirm a habilitación" is not a red flag: a cap requires a clinic-specific official source, right of reply is offered, and any negative wording is kept factual, with URL and date, and reviewed 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 — REPS, RETHUS, SCCP, RUES, Supersalud. We accept edits from clinics only with a source link; we show the clinic's reply alongside the cell, but we don't change the score without a source.