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 10 axes on one public ruler. No hidden scores and no hand-placed ranks — the Índice de Confiança 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 São Paulo public surface and contact are reachable
- Offers/organises surgery in São Paulo, 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 CRM-SP registration and RQE specialty can be checked
- In scope (plastic / aesthetic surgery in São Paulo) — plastic or aesthetic surgery in São Paulo — 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 registered with an active CRM-SP and an RQE specialty in Cirurgia Plástica, does that recognised specialty match the surgery being marketed, which entity is liable if something fails, and does the practice describe its credentials and follow-up honestly before I decide?
- Checkable. The value can be re-checked against a public source — chiefly the CFM portal (portal.cfm.org.br), which returns a doctor's CRM registration and any RQE specialty title by name; the public SBCP directory; the CNES facility register and the entity's active CNPJ; 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 CRM-SP- and RQE-registered, identifiable surgeon with honest advertising beats an anonymous "our team" front behind a medical-tourism package.
The ten axes
Seven measured (80%) and three editorial (20%). 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 · Active CRM-SP registration (responsible surgeon) | Does the responsible surgeon hold an active CRM-SP registration (Conselho Regional de Medicina de São Paulo), checked by name or CRM number on the CFM portal — a live licence to practise medicine in São Paulo, not merely a diploma on the wall? | 6% |
| M2 · RQE specialty title — Cirurgia Plástica (CFM) | Does the surgeon carry an RQE — a Registro de Qualificação de Especialista in Cirurgia Plástica, recorded against the CRM on the CFM portal? The RQE is the official, by-name title that separates a registered plastic-surgery specialist from a doctor who merely markets the field; it is the deterministic spine of the register. We verify that the person and the title are registered; we do not rule on what a doctor is legally allowed to do. | 28% |
| M3 · SBCP membership (name-matched in the public directory) | Is the surgeon name-matched in the public SBCP directory (Sociedade Brasileira de Cirurgia Plástica)? Membership is a supporting bonus, not a gate: it confirms professional standing above the CRM / RQE spine, and its absence is never treated as adverse. | 6% |
| 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. | 18% |
| M5 · Responsible legal entity — active CNPJ | Is there a responsible legal entity with an active CNPJ behind the practice — a traceable company or professional registration, not just a brand name and a phone number? We assess disclosure and checkability of who is legally liable. | 8% |
| M6 · Facility / care-location traceability (CNES) | Is the facility or care-location traceable — a physical address and a CNES establishment record (Cadastro Nacional de Estabelecimentos de Saúde) for where surgery is declared? We assess disclosure and traceability, not a facility licence: an absent ANVISA authorisation is never treated as adverse, and we never assert "licensed" or "unlicensed". | 7% |
| M7 · Documentary transparency (credentials, consent, terms) | Documentary transparency — are the credentials, the informed-consent path, the follow-up structure and the practice's own legal / guarantee terms actually published and checkable? We measure the disclosed structure, not its real enforcement or the surgical outcome. | 7% |
| E1 · Advertising honesty (Resolução CFM 2.336/2023) | Are the public claims honest under Resolução CFM nº 2.336/2023? That the RQE specialty is named correctly (not a "cirurgião estético" title disguised as an official specialty), that there are no guaranteed results, sensational before/after promises, urgency pressure or "save 70%", and that price is never presented as a virtue. | 10% |
| E2 · PT/EN/ES cross-front consistency | Do the facts agree across the site's PT / EN / ES versions — the surgeon, the CRM-SP, the RQE, the entity and the facility reading the same in every language, with no claim that appears on one front and vanishes on another? | 6% |
| E3 · Decision-path clarity | Decision-path clarity — how easily a patient can reach the facts we already measure (surgeon, CRM-SP, RQE, entity, facility, follow-up) and act on them. It is not an assessment of design or content volume. | 4% |
How the axes are weighted
The heaviest axis is the RQE specialty title (28): it is the only official, deterministic, by-name class that separates a registered plastic-surgery specialist from a marketing title. Next is the named, identifiable responsible surgeon (18): even a correct title is useless if you cannot tell who will operate. Active CRM-SP registration is a light gate (6 — little spread once you are past it); the responsible legal entity/CNPJ (8), the traceable facility/CNES (7) and documentary transparency (7) carry the middle; SBCP membership is a supporting bonus, not a gate (6).
Measured axes sum to 80, editorial to 20 — advertising honesty (Resolução CFM 2.336/2023, 10), PT/EN/ES cross-front consistency (6) and decision-path clarity (4). The Índice de Confiança = the weighted average of the axes that carry a value, mapped to 0–100. Below 80% coverage the composite is not published (verification pending); a provisional 70–79% profile is shown without a rank.
The soft verification hold
There is no adverse spine here: this is a positive-verification register, so we build no name-searchable index of disciplined surgeons or sanctioned clinics and never score against one. 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 on the CFM portal (CRM or RQE) on the published data, or an association, aggregator or foreign "board" presented as the Brazilian specialty authority — caps the composite at 69, 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 CFM portal name-search (CRM + RQE) 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.