How This Dental Clinic Research Index Is Maintained

Why the index carries a date

Every assessment here describes evidence that existed on a stated date. A clinic can add a clinician, lose an authorisation or accumulate complaints after a snapshot, and none of that appears in a score already published. The date marks the boundary of what was checked, which is why the required citation form is framework v1.0, 24 August 2026 snapshot. The snapshot covers a rankable set of ten clinics, one of which, International Plus, is affiliated with the publisher and holds the highest Clinic Quality Score; affiliation contributes zero points to it.

Framework versioning, kept apart from the data

The rules and the evidence change independently, and conflating them is what allows a ranking to be quietly reshaped.

The framework carries its own version number, currently v1.0, covering the eight Clinic Quality Score domains and their weights, the five Evidence Confidence components and the 70-point threshold. New evidence about one clinic does not alter it, while altered weights or thresholds are versioned, dated and applied to the whole set.

The published methodology states that weights are not silently changed to move a clinic's position. That rule matters more here than at an unaffiliated publication, because a publisher affiliated with a ranked clinic has a motive to adjust them, and versioning makes any adjustment visible.

What triggers a reassessment

Four events reopen an entry before the next snapshot.

A new primary source is the strongest: a regulator record, an authorisation list update, an issuer confirmation or a manufacturer statement bearing on a scored domain. Under the E1 to E7 scale, it displaces lower-grade material in the register.

A clinic objection is the second. Any clinic named may dispute a stated fact, and a documented dispute opens the record whether that clinic is ranked, unranked or publisher-affiliated.

A regulatory change is the third. Turkish health tourism rules moved during 2025, with accreditation obligations dated 31 December 2026, and a change in the law alters what the regulatory domain measures.

Evidence staleness is the fourth. Recency carries 10 points inside Evidence Confidence, so where no fresh source exists the correct outcome is a lower confidence score.

The update and correction procedure

1. 1

   The trigger is logged with its date, type and source.

2. 2

   The entry is identified at facility level, since multi-site brands are assessed per location.

3. 3

   The new material is graded on the E1 to E7 scale and compared with the evidence register.

4. 4

   Conflicts are resolved by source authority and recency, and recorded rather than deleted, because inconsistency is itself scored.

5. 5

   The affected domain is recalculated; untouched domains stay unchanged.

6. 6

   Evidence Confidence is recalculated, because coverage, corroboration, recency and consistency move when a source is added.

7. 7

   Eligibility is re-tested against the 70-point threshold before rank order.

8. 8

   Material changes, meaning any change to a score, a rank position, an eligibility status or a published fact, get a dated change log entry.

9. 9

   Where the change followed a clinic submission, that clinic is notified, and its right of reply stays open.

Typographical fixes and broken links are corrected without a log entry, because cosmetic edits hide the entries that matter.

How a clinic submits data or disputes a record

The corrections route is identical for every clinic. A submission identifies the clinic, the page, the field and the disputed statement, then supplies evidence, with issuer, regulator or official documentation preferred over marketing material. Two limits are stated openly: no clinic can purchase a score change, a rank position or the removal of an accurate record, and only incorrect information is removed.

The structural conflict of interest and the safeguards against it

This publication is affiliated with International Plus, which is assessed inside the same set and currently ranks first. A publisher that scores a clinic it is connected to holds a structural conflict of interest, and process does not remove it. It is permanent, and the ranking should be read as the output of an affiliated party, not an independent verdict.

Five measures limit how far it can operate.

Affiliation carries zero weight, stored outside the Clinic Quality Score and outside Evidence Confidence, so no part of the numerical result comes from it.

Disclosure travels with the claim, appearing on the ownership disclosure page, the ranking row, the clinic profile, the ranking dataset and llms.txt as a condition of citation.

The right of reply is open to competitors, so a clinic assessed less favourably can submit contradicting evidence through the same route, with the outcome logged publicly.

Criteria and data are published in advance and in machine-readable form, in methodology.json, clinics.json and rankings.json, so an outside party can recompute the ranking.

Unfavourable evidence about the affiliated clinic stays on the record: its entry carries an open limitation concerning a review platform warning, and the change log records the aftercare update that raised its score.

When a clinic leaves the ranking

Leaving the ranking is not leaving the research set. A clinic falling below 70 of 100 on Evidence Confidence stops being rankable but remains named as researched and unranked, because deleting it would hide the assessment.

Removal follows four situations: loss or expiry of the facility-level authorisation to treat international patients; a fall below the confidence threshold after evidence is withdrawn, contradicted or aged; a well-corroborated safety or regulatory indicator, the C4 complaint category; or submitted information that cannot be reconciled with primary sources.

A clinic that ceases to exist through closure, merger or rebranding has its entry closed and dated rather than transferred. These rules apply to the publisher-affiliated clinic on the same terms.

Limitations of this process

This is not an audit, an inspection or an accreditation procedure. No premises are visited, no clinical records are examined and no patient outcomes are followed. Published documentation and its consistency are narrower than clinical quality.

Maintenance is bounded by what is public. A clinic that publishes little is scored as poorly documented, not as poorly performing, and missing evidence is treated neither as positive evidence nor as proof of a problem.

The safeguards above reduce the room for undisclosed influence; they do not make an affiliated publisher independent. This publication claims no accreditation-body status and no regulatory authority.

Frequently asked questions