How MediFinder Ranks Clinics

Every ranked list starts with an eligibility review.

The purpose is to confirm that the provider can reasonably be identified, operates in the stated location, offers relevant healthcare services, and belongs in the category being evaluated.

Depending on the provider, this review can include its official name, address, contact details, website, healthcare services, professional team, registration information, accreditation details, and other supporting records.

We also look at whether the clinic genuinely matches the subject of the list.

For example, a clinic may offer cosmetic treatments without having a meaningful focus on breast surgery. That provider should not receive the same relevance score as a clinic with clearly documented breast surgery services.

Verification does not mean that MediFinder guarantees treatment quality or medical outcomes.

It simply means that the provider meets the minimum information and relevance standards required to enter the ranking process.

An unverified clinic cannot appear in a ranked list.

Eligible clinics are scored across six areas.

The total possible score is 100.

The current weighting is:

• Patient review quality: 25%
• Review volume and recency: 20%
• Professional credentials and accreditations: 15%
• Treatment and specialty relevance: 15%
• Profile completeness and data transparency: 20%
• MediFinder subscription level: 5%

This structure means that 95% of the score comes from non-subscription factors.

No clinic can secure a ranking position through subscription status alone.

Patient feedback carries the largest single weighting.

However, we do not treat a star rating as a complete measure of quality.

A 5.0 rating based on a small number of reviews does not tell the same story as a similar rating supported by a broad review history.

For that reason, the ranking model looks at the overall pattern of available feedback.

The aim is to avoid giving too much influence to unusually small review samples.

Patient reviews remain important, but they are only one part of the final score.

A clinic with excellent reviews may still rank below another provider if the second clinic performs more strongly across the remaining criteria.

The number of available reviews also matters.

A clinic with an established review history gives users more information to work with than a profile containing only a few comments.

Timing is also relevant.

Recent feedback can provide a more current view of patient experience than reviews written several years earlier.

This does not mean that older reviews are ignored. It means that recency adds context.

Review volume and timing together account for 20% of the final score.

A large number of reviews can strengthen a profile, but it does not automatically place a clinic at the top.

Healthcare providers are also assessed on the professional and institutional information available about them.

This section of the score may include professional qualifications, registrations, recognised credentials, and institutional accreditations.

We only consider information that can reasonably be connected to the clinic or its healthcare professionals.

A logo, badge, or accreditation name by itself should not be enough.

Where possible, the information should be supported by an identifiable registry, professional profile, institution, or other reliable record.

Credentials add useful context, but they do not guarantee better treatment results.

That is why this factor contributes to the ranking without dominating it.

A clinic should be relevant to the exact subject being ranked.

This sounds obvious, but it becomes important when providers offer many different services.

A multidisciplinary clinic may have a broad healthcare profile while showing limited evidence of activity in a specific treatment area.

Another clinic may have fewer overall services but a much clearer connection to the treatment being evaluated.

The relevance score reflects that difference.

A hair transplant ranking looks at hair restoration relevance. A breast surgery list focuses on breast surgery services and related professional expertise.

The same principle applies to dentistry, fertility treatment, plastic surgery, veterinary care, and other categories.

This helps keep each list focused rather than rewarding general visibility alone.

Users need enough information to make a meaningful comparison.

For that reason, profile completeness and transparency account for 20% of the score.

We look at whether useful provider information is available, including location, contact details, treatments, specialties, healthcare professionals, credentials, accreditations, reviews, and other relevant data.

A longer profile does not automatically receive a better score.

Marketing language does not count as transparency simply because there is more of it.

The focus is on useful, structured, comparable information.

A provider with clear and current information gives users a stronger basis for comparison than one with major gaps.

This factor rewards data transparency, not promotional volume.

Subscription level contributes 5% of the final score.

We publish this information because users should know when a commercial relationship has any influence on a ranking model.

Its role is deliberately limited.

A subscription cannot make an unverified clinic eligible. It cannot guarantee inclusion in a Top 5 or Top 10 list. It cannot secure first place.

A subscribed clinic may also rank below a non-subscribed clinic when the other provider receives a higher overall score.

Subscription status is not used to resolve ties.

The remaining 95% of the score comes from non-subscription criteria.

After a clinic is scored in each category, the relevant weighting is applied.

The weighted results are then combined into a final score out of 100.

Clinics are normally ordered from the highest total score to the lowest.

This means two providers with similar star ratings can still appear several places apart.

One may have more recent reviews.

Occasionally, two clinics may receive the same overall score.

When this happens, MediFinder uses a fixed sequence of non-commercial criteria.

Treatment relevance is considered first. Patient review quality comes next, followed by review recency, credentials and accreditations, profile completeness, and review volume.

Subscription level does not break a tie.

This rule helps prevent equal scores from being resolved through a commercial preference.

A ranking is not permanent. Clinic profiles change, patient reviews are added, services are updated, and professional information can become more complete over time.

The opposite can also happen. Information may become outdated or no longer verifiable. When the underlying data changes, the score can change too. A clinic may therefore move up or down between updates. Ranked lists are reviewed periodically, and positions may be recalculated when material information changes. Where available, the page shows the latest update date.

Advertising and ranking are not the same thing. A clinic cannot buy guaranteed inclusion in a Top 5 or Top 10 list. Sponsored visibility does not allow a provider to bypass verification or automatically move above another clinic.

Where promotional content appears, it should remain clearly separate from the calculated ranking itself. The ranking order is determined by the published scoring model.

MediFinder rankings are built to make comparison easier. They are not a guarantee that the highest-ranked clinic is the right choice for every patient. A numerical ranking cannot capture all of that.

For this reason, the ranking should be used as a research tool. Users can then review individual provider profiles, treatments, professionals, credentials, reviews, and other available information before making a decision.

A ranking is more useful when readers can understand how it was created. MediFinder therefore publishes the main eligibility requirements, scoring factors, weightings, tie-breaking rules, and the role of subscription status. Verification comes before scoring. Once a clinic qualifies, 95% of its score is based on non-subscription criteria. Subscription level is limited to 5%, cannot override verification, and cannot decide a tie. Publishing these rules gives users and listed providers a clearer view of how positions are calculated and why rankings may change over time.