TPQ-02 · Treatment page quality

Clinical claim substantiation checklist for treatment pages

A ten-criterion checklist for establishing whether each claim on a clinic page can be supported, and what to do with the ones that cannot.

By the Rank My Clinic assessment desk· ·1766 words· 10 criteria

What this instrument establishes

Claim substantiation is the practice of recording, for every claim published about a procedure, what supports it and where that support is held. This checklist scores ten criteria: claim inventory, claim type classification, held evidence, evidence currency, superlatives, comparative claims, before and after material, testimonial claims, safety claims and the substantiation record itself. It establishes whether support exists. It does not grade the quality of that support.

Why the burden sits with you

The principle underlying this instrument is not a matter of opinion. Under the UK advertising codes, the person making a claim is expected to hold the evidence for it before the claim is published, and to produce that evidence on request. The obligation is not triggered by a complaint; it precedes publication.

Most clinics do not disagree with this and still fail it, because claims arrive by inheritance. A distributor supplies copy for a device. A page is written from that copy. Two years later the device has a new version, the study the copy referred to has been superseded, and nobody at the clinic has ever seen either. The claim on the page is now an assertion with no owner.

A claim inventory breaks the inheritance. Reading a page sentence by sentence and asking what each sentence asserts is a mechanical exercise, and it consistently finds three categories: claims the clinic can support immediately, claims it can support with a document it has to go and find, and claims it cannot support at all. The third category is usually smaller than clinics fear and larger than they expect.

The non-broadcast advertising code is the reference document for what is required. Reading its provisions on health and beauty claims before scoring this instrument is time well spent.

How to build a claim inventory

Take the page as plain text. Number every sentence. For each sentence, write what it asserts, in your own words, as a proposition that could be true or false. Sentences asserting nothing are marked as such and set aside.

Classify each proposition: efficacy, safety, comparative, superlative, durability or experiential. The classification matters because different types are supported differently. An efficacy claim needs evidence about outcomes. A durability claim needs evidence over time, which is scarcer. A comparative claim needs evidence that made the comparison, which is scarcer still.

For each proposition, record the source. Product instructions for use, a named published study, the clinic's own audited records, or nothing. Record the date and version. "Nothing" is a legitimate entry and the whole point of the exercise.

Score the ten criteria against the completed inventory. Where a criterion asks whether evidence is held for every claim of a type, score 0 if a single claim of that type lacks it. Substantiation does not average.

Keep the inventory. It is the substantiation record the tenth criterion asks for, and rebuilding it later costs more than maintaining it.

Common scoring errors

Accepting supplier marketing as substantiation. A distributor's brochure is a claim, not evidence for a claim. Instructions for use are a usable source; a sales deck is not.

Scoring a claim as supported because it is widely repeated. Frequency is not evidence, and a claim common across an entire sector is still your claim once you publish it.

Missing implied claims. A before and after pair with no interval stated implies a timescale. A photograph of a patient who plainly had other treatment implies attribution. Implied claims count.

Treating testimonials as a way to make an unsupportable claim safely. Presenting a claim in a patient's voice does not shift the substantiation burden.

Scoring the record as present when only its author can use it. A folder of PDFs on one person's laptop is not a record. The criterion asks whether a colleague could use it.

What to do with a claim you cannot support

There are three defensible options and one that is not.

Remove it. Fastest, and usually costs less than clinics expect, because unsupportable claims are typically the vaguest sentences on the page and their removal is not noticed by readers.

Narrow it until it is supportable. "Results last up to eighteen months" often becomes "in the studies we rely on, effect was observed at twelve months in most participants, and our own patients typically return between nine and fifteen months". Longer, duller, defensible, and more useful to a reader deciding.

Reframe it as clinic practice rather than as a general claim. "We use this technique because of what we have observed in our own patients" asserts something about you, which you can support from your own records, rather than something about the world.

The option that is not defensible is leaving it and hoping. The burden does not lapse with time, and a page that has carried a claim for five years is not thereby safer.

When the inventory is clean, run the advertising compliance self-audit, which covers matters substantiation does not, and the before and after imagery governance scorecard if your pages carry photographs.

TPQ-02

Claim substantiation checklist

What it measures
Whether every claim published about a procedure can be supported by evidence the clinic actually holds, and whether that support is recorded.
What it does not measure
It does not judge whether the evidence is good evidence. It establishes whether evidence exists and is recorded, which is a lower bar and a necessary one.
Scoring method
Criterion referenced. 10 criteria, each scored 0 to 3 against the descriptor given. Maximum 30.
Evidence needed
One page, and whatever the clinic holds by way of product literature, instructions for use, published studies and internal records.
Working time
Around 45 minutes for a page carrying a dozen claims.
Who should score it
A clinician, since the exercise requires judgement about what a claim actually asserts.
Band scale
  • 0 Absent
  • 1 Emerging
  • 2 Established
  • 3 Embedded
  1. 01

    A claim inventory exists

    Somebody has listed every claim the page makes, sentence by sentence. Score 0 if no list exists, 3 if a written inventory exists and is dated.

  2. 02

    Claims are classified by type

    Each claim is marked as efficacy, safety, comparative, superlative, durability or experiential. Score 0 if unclassified, 3 if every claim carries a type.

  3. 03

    Evidence is held for each efficacy claim

    For each claim about what the procedure achieves, the clinic can produce the source. Score 0 if any claim has no identified source, 3 if every one does.

  4. 04

    Evidence currency is recorded

    The date and version of each source is recorded, including product instructions for use. Score 0 if undated, 3 if dated and checked within the last year.

  5. 05

    Superlatives are removed or supported

    Claims of being best, leading, most advanced or similar are either removed or supported by something specific. Score 0 if unsupported superlatives remain, 3 if none remain or each is supported.

  6. 06

    Comparative claims are supported

    Any claim that the procedure or clinic is better than an alternative is supported by a source that made that comparison. Score 0 if comparisons are asserted, 3 if each is supported or removed.

  7. 07

    Before and after material is governed

    Images used to support a claim are the clinic's own, consented, unretouched, and labelled with interval and treatment. Score 0 if provenance is unclear, 3 if every image has a record.

  8. 08

    Testimonial claims are separated from clinical claims

    Patient statements are presented as experience, not as evidence of efficacy. Score 0 if testimonials carry clinical assertions, 3 if the distinction is clear on the page.

  9. 09

    Safety claims are precise

    Statements about safety specify for whom, under what conditions, and by whom performed. Score 0 if safety is asserted generally, 3 if qualified and sourced.

  10. 10

    A substantiation record is maintained

    A single document links each published claim to its support and its date. Score 0 if none exists, 3 if it exists, is current and is findable by someone other than its author.

Total score 0/ 30 Not yet scored

Scoring runs in your browser and nowhere else. Nothing is saved, nothing is sent to us, and closing the page clears it. Print this page to fill the instrument in on paper.

Band interpretations

0 to 10Absent

The page makes claims the clinic cannot presently support. This is a regulatory exposure as well as a quality problem, since the burden of substantiation sits with the advertiser rather than with anybody who challenges it.

Next action. Build the claim inventory first. It is a sentence-by-sentence read of one page and it usually takes under an hour.

11 to 17Emerging

Some claims are supported and some are habitual. The unsupported ones are typically superlatives and comparisons inherited from supplier material.

Next action. Remove or support every superlative and comparative claim. These are the two categories most often challenged and the easiest to fix.

18 to 25Established

Most claims are supported and recorded. The gaps are usually currency, image provenance and the separation of testimonial from evidence.

Next action. Date the sources, document the images, and build the substantiation record if it does not yet exist as a single document.

26 to 30Embedded

Every published claim has identified support with a date, held in one record a colleague could use. The clinic could answer a challenge the same day.

Next action. Re-run when the page changes, when a product changes, or annually. Add the record to the process for approving any new page.

Treatment page quality instrument TPQ-02. Bands are criterion referenced: they describe your operation against the descriptors above, not against any other clinic. No comparative benchmark for UK aesthetic clinics is published, so this instrument does not pretend to one.

What this instrument does not tell you

  • Whether the evidence you hold is strong. A single small manufacturer study is a source, and this checklist scores it as present without endorsing it.
  • Whether your claims are lawful. Substantiation is one input to that judgement and the advertising compliance self-audit addresses the rest.
  • Whether a claim is clinically true. Evidence can exist for a claim that later proves unreliable.
  • Whether removing a claim will cost you enquiries. It might. The instrument does not weigh that against the exposure.
  • How other clinics handle this. No comparative dataset exists, and the standard here is the one set by the published codes rather than by common practice.

Every instrument on this site carries this block. An assessment that will not state its own limits is a sales document with a scale printed on it.

Questions about this instrument

Does this apply to social media as well as the website?

Yes. The substantiation obligation attaches to the claim, not to the surface it appears on, and a claim made in a video caption is a claim. Many clinics have a well-governed website and an ungoverned social account making stronger claims to a larger audience.

What counts as acceptable evidence?

This instrument scores whether a source is identified and dated rather than grading it, which is deliberate: grading evidence quality requires clinical expertise that varies by procedure. What it will say is that a source you cannot produce is not evidence, and that a supplier's promotional material is not a source.

Our claims came from the device manufacturer. Are we covered?

Not automatically. Once you publish a claim it is your claim, and you are expected to hold the support for it. Ask the manufacturer for the underlying evidence rather than the marketing summary of it, and record what you receive with its date.

How often should the inventory be refreshed?

Whenever the page changes, whenever a product or technique changes, and otherwise annually. The currency criterion exists because a source that was accurate in 2022 may have been superseded, and nobody will tell you.

Is it worth doing this for every page?

Start with pages describing procedures involving prescription medicines, devices or significant risk, since those carry the most exposure. Extending to every page is worthwhile and can be sequenced over a year.

Sources

  1. Advertising Standards Authority: the non-broadcast advertising code
  2. MHRA: the Blue Guide, advertising and promoting medicines
  3. General Medical Council: guidance for doctors who offer cosmetic interventions
  4. Competition and Markets Authority

Disclosure. This instrument contains no commercial links of any kind. Rank My Clinic is published by Northbank Media. We do not rank clinics, we do not rank suppliers, and no organisation can pay to influence any criterion, band or interpretation. Nothing here is medical, legal or regulatory advice.

Related instruments

The full library
TPQ-01 · Treatment pages

Treatment page quality rubric

Measures: The completeness, balance and usability of one treatment page, assessed against twelve written descriptors.…

12 criteriaMax 369 min