How we measure
This is a positive-verification trust register: we verify structural facts of trust, not surgical outcomes. Each practice gets an open profile across 9 axes on one public ruler. No hidden scores and no hand-placed ranks — the Structural Verification Index composite is computed from published weights. We take no money from clinics, never book or refer, and every practice has a right of reply.
The gate — who enters the register
We list a practice if it can be identified correctly, it delivers the surgery (not just booking), and it is operating. If a practice publishes no name for its responsible surgeon, 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 practice — and the practice can supply the name at any time.
- Live public surface + working contact (as of date) — the practice is genuinely operating and its CDMX public surface and contact are reachable
- Offers/organises surgery in CDMX, not a bare aggregator — the entity actually offers or organises the surgery — not a marketplace, affiliate or booking broker
- Named, identifiable responsible surgeon — a named, identifiable responsible surgeon is published, so the CMCPER certification and cédula can be checked
- In scope (plastic / aesthetic surgery in CDMX) — plastic or aesthetic surgery in CDMX — 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 surgeon actually certified by CMCPER, does the registered specialty match the surgery being marketed, which entity is liable if something fails, and does the practice describe its certification and follow-up honestly before I decide?
- Checkable. The value can be re-checked against a public source — chiefly the CMCPER certified-surgeon directory (directoriocirugiaplastica.mx), which returns certification and its validity by name; the professional and specialty cédula in SEP; the CONACEM specialist buscador; and the practice's own published legal and guarantee terms.
- Robust to confounds. The heavy axes do not reward fame, a big review count or a slick site: a CMCPER-certified, identifiable surgeon with honest advertising beats an anonymous "our team" front behind a medical-tourism package.
The nine axes
Seven measured (85%) and two editorial (15%). 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 · CMCPER board certification (current) | Is the responsible surgeon in the CMCPER certified-surgeon directory (directoriocirugiaplastica.mx) with current certification — checked by name or certificate number, not merely a diploma on the wall? CMCPER is the only board that certifies plastic surgeons in Mexico; this is the deterministic spine of the register. | 27% |
| M2 · Professional & specialty cédula (SEP) | Do the professional cédula and the specialty cédula in the SEP registry match the full name and the recognised specialty of Cirugía Plástica y Reconstructiva? We verify that the person and the title are registered; we do not rule on what a doctor is legally allowed to do. | 10% |
| M3 · Current specialist cross-check (CONACEM) | Does CONACEM confirm the specialist is current in the relevant council? It is an independent cross-check above CMCPER that catches lapsed titles or uncertified specialties. | 8% |
| M4 · Named, identifiable responsible surgeon | Can the patient, before booking, name the specific surgeon who is accountable for the surgery and understand their role? An anonymous "our team", a surname only, or a broker with no named operator do not allow a personal decision → verification unavailable. | 17% |
| M5 · Responsible entity, address & surgical facility | Is the responsible entity, the physical address and the hospital or facility where surgery is declared clear? We assess disclosure and checkability, not a facility licence: COFEPRIS offers no public per-clinic register, so we never assert "licensed" or "unlicensed". | 8% |
| M6 · Advertising honesty & ES/EN/PT consistency | Are the public claims correct and consistent? That CMCPER is named as the certifying board (not AMCPER or a foreign "American Board"), that "cirujano estético" is not disguised as an official specialty, that there are no guaranteed results, urgency pressure or "save 70%", and that the facts agree across the site's ES/EN/PT versions. | 10% |
| M7 · Disclosed aftercare / follow-up structure | Is there a published post-operative follow-up structure — check-up stages and dates, a medical contact, an escalation path and revision conditions, and for the international patient the handoff of care after they return? We measure the disclosed structure, not real enforcement or the outcome. | 5% |
| E1 · Transparency of self-presentation | Transparency of self-presentation — how easily a patient can find the facts we already measure (surgeon, CMCPER, cédula, entity, facility, follow-up). It is not an assessment of design or content volume. | 8% |
| E2 · Information-signal quality | Information-signal quality — the ratio of information useful for a decision to persuasive pressure. It does not repeat M6's discrete defects; it judges the page's overall information regime after counting them. | 7% |
How the axes are weighted
The heaviest axis is CMCPER certification (27): it is the only official, deterministic, by-name class that separates certified specialisation from a marketing title. Next is the named, identifiable responsible surgeon (17): even a correct certificate is useless if you cannot tell who will operate. The SEP cédula (10) and CONACEM (8) support M1 without letting one credential count three times; advertising honesty carries 10; entity and facility, 8; aftercare, 5.
Measured axes sum to 85, editorial to 15. The Structural Verification Index = the weighted average of the axes that carry a value, mapped to 0–100. Below 85% coverage the composite is not published (verification pending); a provisional 70–84% profile is shown without a rank.
The soft verification hold
There is no adverse spine here: Mexico publishes no name-searchable register of disciplined surgeons or sanctioned clinics, so we build none. A hold is a neutral statement about verifiability, never a disciplinary or quality accusation. A clarification-pending hold (H1) shows a provisional profile without a crown. A material structural conflict (H2) — for example, a named surgeon who cannot be resolved in CMCPER on the published data, or AMCPER / an "American Board" presented as the Mexican certifying board — caps the composite at 59, in the partial-verification band, after a right of reply. If the responsible surgeon cannot be identified (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 CMCPER name-search and re-read the same public terms. We accept edits from practices only with a source link; we show the practice's reply alongside, but we don't change a score without a source.