Czech Beauty Clinic Rating Structural Verification Index — aesthetic medicine & plastic surgery
By procedure: Rhinoplasty Breast surgery Liposuction & body contouring Hair transplant Injectables Medical weight loss

How we measure

Version 1.0.0, updated 29 August 2026. Public name of the score: Structural Verification Index. Every number on this site can be recomputed from the published data and the rules on this page: the engine reads the same file this page is rendered from.

What we check — and what we do not

We check structural trust facts against official public registers: who the responsible physician is, what certification and licence the registers confirm, whether the facility and the legal entity can be traced, whether the clinic discloses its own identifiers, whether its advertising is honest, whether its language fronts agree, and whether patient documents are published.

We do not assess outcomes, skill or complications. A high score means the clinic is well verified, not that treatment there is right for you. This is not medical advice.

The unit

One record = one clinic in this country: brand + address + responsible physician. The named physician is the load-bearing field — every register check is by name. Procedure segment and city are facets, not units.

Inclusion policy

Four mechanical conditions. The first three decide whether a clinic is listed; the fourth whether it can be scored.

  1. Identifiable: a live public surface and a working in-country contact on the check date.
  2. Provides the service itself: not an aggregator, booking site, affiliate or tour packager.
  3. In scope: the intervention is performed by a physician — plastic or aesthetic surgery, hair transplant, physician-led injectables or device treatments, medical weight loss. Out: salons, barbers, nails/brows/lashes, spas, med-spas without a named physician.
  4. Names a responsible physician. Otherwise the record is published as verification unavailable: listed, not scored, no rank. Unknown is not fault — a missing name is a statement about coverage, not an accusation.

Country register map

The map for Czech Republic was compiled 29 August 2026, before any clinic research. A class marked as absent makes its axis not applicable; a register that cannot be scripted leaves its axis cells as 'could not verify', without penalty. We never simulate a register.

Specialist board registerČeská lékařská komora (ČLK) — Seznam lékařů (public physician directory), incl. specialisation e.g. plastická chirurgie (behind CAPTCHA, not scriptable)
Czech-language only (the EN/DE toggle changes UI labels only; the reCAPTCHA is present on the EN page too). Diacritics matter for surname search. NO login anywhere; the sole blocker is an invisible Google reCAPTCHA v2 on the search submit, so the register is 'captcha', not 'form'. Plastic surgery is filterSpecializace=90 ('plastická chirurgie'); per the register's own help text a doctor with no specialisation on file is findable by name only, and searching by specialisation requires okres+specializace together. Detail pages, once reached in a browser, are plain unauthenticated HTML (name, evidenční číslo, education, specialisation, workplace). WHAT WAS TRIED THIS PASS (curl + browser UA, session cookie carried throughout): (a) multipart POST to ?do[findLekar]=1 with NO g-recaptcha-response → 302 to state=DATA_LIST; the page re-renders the form with filterPrijmeni="Sukop" preserved plus the error „Neplatný filtr. Proveďte prosím nové vyhledávání. V prohlížeči je třeba mít povolený JavaScript.“ (b) the same POST WITH a syntactically plausible dummy g-recaptcha-response → the „Neplatný filtr“ error disappears and is replaced by „Platnost vyhledávání vypršela nebo je ověření neplatné. Proveďte prosím nové vyhledávání.“ — i.e. the server really does verify the token with Google and rejects a fabricated one. That pair of distinct error messages is the proof the gate is the CAPTCHA itself, not a missing JS-built query token. (c) application/x-www-form-urlencoded instead of multipart → same „Neplatný filtr“. (d) POST with X-Requested-With: XMLHttpRequest → empty 0-byte body. (e) switched the UI to English via ?do[switchLang]=1&filterLekarLang=en first, then the same POST → same „Neplatný filtr“, and the EN page still serves the same reCAPTCHA. (f) hunted for a CAPTCHA-free read path: /sitemap.xml (370 KB, 1500+ URLs) contains NO doctor URLs at all; ?item.id=<n>&do[load]=1 on /seznam-lekaru (the detail-page pattern the sibling register /seznam-skolitelu-dle-sp-c-12 uses) returns an identical 49,173-byte stub for every id tried (1, 100, 15192, 50000); /seznam-lekaru-detail, /detail-lekare, /lekar, /seznam-clenu and /seznam-lekaru-en all 404. NO filterId token exists anywhere in the current markup or in the site JS bundle (scripts-public-2da9ac8455b41e565f2a2a5d77251419.js), so the previous pass's 'JS-built filterId' reading is superseded: the real and only blocker is the reCAPTCHA. No login wall anywhere. Reclassified 'form' → 'captcha' after a genuine scripted attempt. SCRIPTABLE PARTIAL CROSS-CHECK (NOT a replacement for ČLK board data): the NRPZS open-data CSV used by facility_registry below lists sole-practitioner specialists as providers in their own name together with their licensed field of care — e.g. „MUDr. Andrej Sukop Ph.D.“, poskytovatel_ICO 86595733, ZZ_ID 48530, ZZ_druh_kod 324 „Samostatná ordinace lékaře specialisty“, Praha 1, Platnéřská 89/11, ZZ_obor_pece=„plastická chirurgie“, active since 2003-09-01 — an official state record of that named doctor practising plastic surgery, obtained openly and verified this session. It attests the licensed SCOPE OF THE PRACTICE, not ČLK board membership, so it must not be cited as specialist-board provenance on M1.
Medical licence registerČeská lékařská komora (ČLK) — Seznam lékařů / Registr členů ČLK (ČLK membership is the mandatory medical licence to practise in CZ; same public register as specialist_board) (behind CAPTCHA, not scriptable)
By law (zákon č. 220/1991 Sb. + stavovský předpis č. 21) ČLK membership is mandatory to practise medicine in CZ and the public member list must be published; birth dates and mailing addresses are excluded by law. Czech-only, diacritics-sensitive. No CAPTCHA-free read path exists (the sitemap carries no doctor URLs; the ?item.id=<n>&do[load]=1 detail pattern returns a constant stub). The one openly readable ČLK sub-list found is /hostujici-osoby (register of visiting EU „hostující osoby“), which is plain GET-able HTML with no reCAPTCHA — but it lists a handful of temporary EU providers, not the member register, so it cannot carry this axis. WHAT WAS TRIED THIS PASS (curl + browser UA, session cookie carried throughout): (a) multipart POST to ?do[findLekar]=1 with NO g-recaptcha-response → 302 to state=DATA_LIST; the page re-renders the form with filterPrijmeni="Sukop" preserved plus the error „Neplatný filtr. Proveďte prosím nové vyhledávání. V prohlížeči je třeba mít povolený JavaScript.“ (b) the same POST WITH a syntactically plausible dummy g-recaptcha-response → the „Neplatný filtr“ error disappears and is replaced by „Platnost vyhledávání vypršela nebo je ověření neplatné. Proveďte prosím nové vyhledávání.“ — i.e. the server really does verify the token with Google and rejects a fabricated one. That pair of distinct error messages is the proof the gate is the CAPTCHA itself, not a missing JS-built query token. (c) application/x-www-form-urlencoded instead of multipart → same „Neplatný filtr“. (d) POST with X-Requested-With: XMLHttpRequest → empty 0-byte body. (e) switched the UI to English via ?do[switchLang]=1&filterLekarLang=en first, then the same POST → same „Neplatný filtr“, and the EN page still serves the same reCAPTCHA. (f) hunted for a CAPTCHA-free read path: /sitemap.xml (370 KB, 1500+ URLs) contains NO doctor URLs at all; ?item.id=<n>&do[load]=1 on /seznam-lekaru (the detail-page pattern the sibling register /seznam-skolitelu-dle-sp-c-12 uses) returns an identical 49,173-byte stub for every id tried (1, 100, 15192, 50000); /seznam-lekaru-detail, /detail-lekare, /lekar, /seznam-clenu and /seznam-lekaru-en all 404. NO filterId token exists anywhere in the current markup or in the site JS bundle (scripts-public-2da9ac8455b41e565f2a2a5d77251419.js), so the previous pass's 'JS-built filterId' reading is superseded: the real and only blocker is the reCAPTCHA. No login wall anywhere. Reclassified 'form' → 'captcha' after a genuine scripted attempt.
Facility registerNRPZS — Národní registr poskytovatelů zdravotních služeb (National Register of Healthcare Service Providers), operated by ÚZIS ČR (IČO 00024341); queried via its official open-data export „NRPZS: Místa poskytování zdravotních služeb“ (NR-01-06) (open, machine-readable)
The interactive NRPZS site nrpzs.uzis.cz is still NOT reachable from this environment: DNS resolves it to 193.16.104.38 (ext-38.uzis.cz) but the TCP connect times out on both 443 and 80, while the sibling host www.uzis.cz at 193.16.104.139 answers normally — so this is a host-specific block, not a general uzis.cz problem (opendata.uzis.cz no longer resolves at all, and nrpzs.uzis.gov.cz / opendata.uzis.gov.cz do not resolve either). The register was therefore reached through its official ÚZIS bulk open-data export on a DIFFERENT, reachable host, located via the national open-data catalogue data.gov.cz. RECIPE (no token, no cookie, no login, no CAPTCHA): plain GET https://datanzis.uzis.gov.cz/data/NR-01-NRPZS/NR-01-06/Otevrena-data-NR-01-06-nrpzs-mista-poskytovani-zdravotnich-sluzeb.csv → UTF-8, RFC4180-quoted, comma-separated, ~28.3 MB / 40,849 data rows / 49 columns; filter locally. A machine-readable CSVW column dictionary sits next to it at https://datanzis.uzis.gov.cz/data/NR-01-NRPZS/NR-01-06/Otevrena-data-NR-01-06-nrpzs-mista-poskytovani-zdravotnich-sluzeb.csv-metadata.json (14 KB, per-column dc:description in Czech). Key columns for trust checks: poskytovatel_ICO (joins straight to the legal_entity axis via or.justice.cz / ARES), ZZ_ID, ZZ_kod (IČO+PČZ), ZZ_nazev (facility name), ZZ_druh_kod / ZZ_druh_nazev (facility type: 301 = ambulatory provider over 5 fields, 302 = under 5 fields, 324 = single specialist practice), ZZ_obor_pece (licensed fields of care — where „plastická chirurgie“ / „korektivní dermatologie“ appear), ZZ_forma_pece, ZZ_rozsah_pece, ZZ_datum_zahajeni_cinnosti (date the facility was licensed to start; usable as an age datum), full address plus ZZ_RUIAN_kod and ZZ_GPS, poskytovatel_nazev / poskytovatel_pravni_forma_nazev, poskytovatel_web, and poskytovatel_odborny_zastupce (the named doctor who is the facility's legal professional representative). Matching is a local substring search, so diacritics and exact Czech spelling matter: normalise (NFD, strip combining marks, lowercase) before matching, and be aware that ÚZIS spells the same operator inconsistently across rows („ASKLEPION - Lasercentrum Praha s.r.o.“ vs „… Praha , s.r.o.“), so key on poskytovatel_ICO wherever possible. Refreshed monthly by ÚZIS (this copy 2026-08-01). The catalogue record is https://data.gov.cz/zdroj/datov%C3%A9-sady/00024341/aa4c99d9f1480cca59807389cf88d4dc and the file is re-locatable via the data.gov.cz SPARQL endpoint (https://data.gov.cz/sparql, GET ?query=<SPARQL> with Accept: application/sparql-results+json, filtering dcat:downloadURL on 'NR-01-06' or dct:title on 'NRPZS') if ÚZIS moves it. The directory is browsable: https://datanzis.uzis.gov.cz/data/NR-01-NRPZS/NR-01-06/ (Apache index; sibling dirs NR-01-01..NR-01-05 exist but are currently empty). CAVEAT: this export covers PLACES OF PROVISION of currently registered providers; it is not the interactive NRPZS UI, so it offers no historical/withdrawn-registration view and no per-facility detail page — cite the CSV distribution URL plus poskytovatel_ICO + ZZ_ID as the record identifier.
Company registerVeřejný rejstřík a Sbírka listin (Ministry of Justice public commercial register, or.justice.cz) — primary; ARES (Administrativní registr ekonomických subjektů, ares.gov.cz) REST API — secondary cross-check (open, machine-readable)
Czech-only. Diacritics matter in company-name search but IČO search (numeric) sidesteps that. or.justice.cz is the authoritative legal-entity register; ARES is a cross-registry aggregator (also pulls RES/RŽP/VR) useful for a secondary confirm. A third-party mirror, ares.cz, also exists but is NOT the official government portal and fronts its search with an anti-bot honeypot field — do not use it as the cited source.
Sanctions / discipline registerno public register of this class in this country
Foreign-patient registerno public register of this class in this country

The nine axes

Every axis is a fact or a quote from a public source, scored 1–5 against a fixed rubric. There are no editorial axes. Each cell carries its sources, its source class (official register / secondary) and its check date.

Fame, review volume, domain age and social-media following are scored nowhere.

M1 · Specialist certification of the responsible physician — weight 26

Whether the physician named as responsible for this clinic is found in the country's specialist board register with a current specialisation matching the advertised segment (plastic surgery or dermatology, by segment).

Register class: Specialist board register — Česká lékařská komora (ČLK) — Seznam lékařů (public physician directory), incl. specialisation e.g. plastická chirurgie.

ValueAnchor
5Found by name or number; specialty matches what is advertised; status current.
4Found; specialty adjacent to what is advertised (noted on the profile).
3Found in the register; the register does not disclose specialty.
2Only a secondary source (association, aggregator) supports the certification.
1Certification is claimed and found in no source.

M2 · Identifiability of the responsible physician — weight 16

Whether a patient can name the specific physician and their role before making contact, and whether that physician is tied to this location.

ValueAnchor
5Physician(s) named with role and tied to this address.
4Named; role unclear.
3A name appears in only one place on the site.
2Surname or initials without a full name.
1'Our team' only — this is the gate state 'verification unavailable'.

M3 · Basic medical licence — weight 8

Whether the responsible physician's registration is found in the country's medical licence register.

Register class: Medical licence register — Česká lékařská komora (ČLK) — Seznam lékařů / Registr členů ČLK (ČLK membership is the mandatory medical licence to practise in CZ; same public register as specialist_board).

ValueAnchor
5Matched by licence number.
4Matched by name.
3Register not machine-accessible; the clinic publishes the number.
2Licence claimed without a number.
1Public data contradicts the claim.

M4 · Facility registration — weight 10

Whether the operating location is found in the facility register (where the country has one; otherwise this axis is not applicable).

Register class: Facility register — NRPZS — Národní registr poskytovatelů zdravotních služeb (National Register of Healthcare Service Providers), operated by ÚZIS ČR (IČO 00024341); queried via its official open-data export „NRPZS: Místa poskytování zdravotních služeb“ (NR-01-06).

ValueAnchor
5Record found: name, address and status match.
4Record found with a spelling discrepancy.
3Register exists; no record found (we do not claim 'unlicensed').
2Only the clinic's own statement.
1A published registration number is contradicted by the register (verified false → flag).

M5 · Legal-entity traceability — weight 8

Who is legally responsible: a legal entity in the company register, tied to the brand and the address.

Register class: Company register — Veřejný rejstřík a Sbírka listin (Ministry of Justice public commercial register, or.justice.cz) — primary; ARES (Administrativní registr ekonomických subjektů, ares.gov.cz) REST API — secondary cross-check.

ValueAnchor
5Legal entity and registration number published and matched in the register.
4Matched by name.
3Legal entity named; register not accessible.
2Brand only.
1No legal entity found after a full pass (verified conflict → hold H2).

M6 · Self-disclosure of identifiers — weight 10

Whether the clinic itself publishes the numbers needed to re-check it (licences, certificates with issuer). Disclosure is rewarded; a missing number is not a missing licence.

ValueAnchor
5All load-bearing numbers published with issuers.
4Physician numbers published; facility or legal-entity numbers not.
3Partial, without issuers.
2Logos without numbers.
1No identifiers at all.

M7 · Advertising honesty — weight 12

A machine profile of the clinic’s own claims: outcome guarantees, ‘100% safe’, ‘No. 1’ or ‘best’ without an issuer, ‘unlimited grafts’, before/after presented as a promise, foreign boards presented as the national specialist board. Every deduction cites an exact quote with URL, locale and date.

ValueAnchor
5No pattern from the lexicon found.
4One or two soft superlatives.
3Systematic superlatives without guarantees.
2Guarantee or ‘100%’-class statement (bright line; cap candidate).
1Verified fake credential (flag + cap).

M8 · Cross-locale consistency — weight 5

Whether facts agree across the language fronts of the clinic's own site (physician, numbers, accreditations) — a mechanical comparison of extracted fields.

ValueAnchor
5All load-bearing fields agree.
4Spelling discrepancies.
3Some facts appear on only one front.
2A load-bearing fact (physician or number) differs.
1Fronts contradict each other on credentials (H2 candidate).

M9 · Patient documents — weight 5

Presence check for five document classes: informed consent, risks/contraindications, aftercare, revision policy, complaint route. Presence only — the quality of the documents is not assessed.

ValueAnchor
5All five classes published.
4Four.
3Two or three.
2One.
1None.

The formula

Each axis value 1–5 is mapped to 0–1. The composite is the weighted average over the axes that hold a value: axes that are not applicable in this country and axes we could not verify drop out of the normalisation.

composite = 100 × Σ(weight × (value − 1) / 4) / Σ(weight of axes with a value)
score = min(composite + focus adjustment, lowest active ceiling), clamped to 0…100

Coverage threshold: a score is published only when at least 75% of the applicable axis weight holds a sourced value. Below that the record shows 'verification pending' and carries no rank.

Focus adjustment

A mechanical classification from the clinic's own menu.

FocusAdjustment
specialist0
aesthetic in general clinic-2
spa or salon addon-5

Score ceilings

A ceiling is applied only from a verified-false finding — never from 'not found'. Each ceiling is rendered from a fixed template with the exact quote or register entry and its URL; no free text is written about a named clinic.

CeilingMax scoreWhat triggers itFixed wording
Verified false accreditation or licence claim45A claimed accreditation, board certification or licence is contradicted by the official register. Never applied on 'not found' alone.The register {registry} (record dated {date}) does not confirm the credential claimed at {url}: “{quote}”. Under this methodology the score is capped at {cap}. The clinic has been offered a right of reply.
Outcome guarantee or ‘100% safe’-class statement65The clinic's own published text guarantees a result or absolute safety. Applied only with the exact quote.The clinic's own page {url} ({locale}, {date}) states: “{quote}”. Under this methodology an outcome guarantee caps the score at {cap}.
Active sanction in a machine-readable official register45Exists only in countries whose registry map declares a sanctions register. Absence of a sanction is never a finding.Entry in the {registry} register dated {date}: {url}. The score is capped at {cap} and the profile is held pending the clinic's right of reply.

The sanctions ceiling exists only in countries with a machine-readable official sanctions register. In this country: no public register of this class in this country. Absence of a sanction is never a finding.

Holds

Positive verification by default; the hold ladder handles the cases where public records conflict or the physician cannot be identified.

IDHoldEffectFixed wording
H1Clarification requestedprofile provisional, no crownA clarification has been requested from the clinic. The profile is provisional and carries no crown until it is resolved.
H2Material structural conflictceiling after the right-of-reply window (69), 14-day right-of-reply windowPublic records show a material structural conflict ({detail}). After the right-of-reply window the score is capped at {cap}.
H3Responsible physician not identifiablecomposite withheld, unrankedThe responsible physician could not be identified from public sources. The composite score is withheld and the clinic is listed without a rank.

Crowns and procedure slices

A crown is a boolean gate from register-verified axes — never from a clinic's claim. Within a crown, the order is the composite.

CrownMeaningGate
Specialist-ledThe responsible physician holds a current, matching specialist certification in the official register (M1 = 5, official source) and is clearly identifiable (M2 ≥ 4).M1 ≥ 5 (official register) · M2 ≥ 4
Foreign-patient readyThe clinic is verified in the country's official foreign-patient register. Exists only where such a register exists.no such register in this country — this crown does not exist here

Procedure slices list the clinics whose own menu names the procedure (a sourced boolean), ranked by the composite:

Outcome quality

There is no independent measurement of treatment outcomes in this field, and we do not imitate one. The register facts already in the axes are the only quality-adjacent evidence we publish.

How the data is produced (unattended run)

  1. No score without a source — in two passes. A collector records the value, the quote and the URL; a separate verifier reloads the URL and looks for the quote by string match. If the quote is not found, the cell degrades to 'could not verify'.
  2. All negative wording is templated. Ceilings and holds are rendered from fixed strings plus the cited quote or register entry. Nothing free-form is written against a named clinic.
  3. The validator is the build gate. Every axis key must be present (null allowed, absence not), every citation must resolve, ceilings only from verified-false findings with a quote, weights must sum to 100, and superlatives in our own text fail the build.
  4. A checklist per record: at least two independent sources, the register map opened and cited, every axis either a sourced value or an explicit 'could not verify'.
  5. Right of reply without a human in the loop: messages to the contact form or corrections@ are processed as ordinary data input. A correction with a source is applied and logged; a statement without one is published next to the data and the score does not change.

Freshness

Each record shows the real date of its last check. Register axes (M1, M3, M4) are rechecked within 90 days; the advertising axis (M7) within 180 days. Every change is logged in the changelog and in the record's own history.

What this register does not do

Independence: we take no money from clinics, we do not book, we do not refer, and no position can be bought. Data changes only through sourced facts, for every clinic under the same rules.

This site is an independent research project provided 'as is'. Clinic names and public information are used for identification. Nothing here creates a doctor–patient or advisory relationship.

Methodology versions

DateVersionChange
29 August 2026v1.0.0Initial public methodology: nine mechanical axes (M1–M9, weights summing to 100), 1–5 rubric per axis, weighted composite normalised over axes that hold a value, 75% coverage threshold, hold ladder H1–H3, score caps only from verified-false findings, focus penalty, registry-gated crowns.