Methodology

MHI helps you discover and compare health options. Pages summarise public information and research; they do not diagnose, prescribe or replace a consultation with a qualified professional. See our Medical Disclaimer.

Prefer primary sources linked on each page when making decisions. Treat our summaries as a map, not a medical opinion about you.

We prefer sources in this order of trust:

1. Official regulator registries (for example CQC, GMC, HCPC)
2. NHS or government publications and NICE guidance
3. Peer-reviewed research (systematic reviews and primary studies)
4. Professional body standards
5. Provider self-reported information that editorial has cross-checked

Lower-trust directory imports are not published without editorial review. We do not scrape third-party review platforms into MHI profiles without a clear basis to do so.

Typical provider workflow:

1. Identify providers in specialties and places we are actively covering
2. Gather name, location and publicly available details from the provider’s own site and other public sources
3. Enrich with treatments, conditions and public contact details where available
4. Apply deeper editorial review to selected profiles before marking them editorially reviewed

Published provider pages should show sources and a last-reviewed date where editorial review is complete. Selection rules sit in our Editorial Policy.

Listed — the provider appears in MHI discovery surfaces (for example the providers directory). Listing means the provider is included for discovery; depth of review can vary while profiles are still being completed.

Editorially reviewed — MHI has completed a deeper editorial pass on the profile. This is an editorial-quality signal — not a confirmation of clinical excellence, outcomes, ownership identity, or suitability for you.

MHI does not currently operate a public identity-verification badge for providers. Absence of an editorially reviewed label is not automatically a warning; it often means a fuller editorial review is still pending.

Health claims on treatments, products and conditions carry an evidence grade based on the strongest applicable source:

• Strong — consistent high-quality evidence or authoritative guidelines
• Moderate — supportive evidence that is not yet conclusive
• Limited — some evidence, but thin quality or quantity
• Conflicting — quality sources disagree
• Insufficient — no reliable evidence base found

We assign the grade of the strongest source, not an average. We do not upgrade a grade without a justifying source. If evidence is conflicting or insufficient, the page should say so explicitly.

Comparisons are built around factual dimensions readers need — modality, typical use, evidence posture, practical constraints — presented side by side.

We do not declare a single winner. Ranking-style language (“best”, “#1”, “recommended by MHI”) is not used as a conclusion label on comparison guides.

Lists and search results are ordered, not random. Current signals include:

• Relevance — text match to the query (high weight)
• Location proximity — when a location is part of the search (medium)
• Regulatory status — public registry status when present on the profile (medium)
• Evidence grade — for treatments and products with graded evidence (medium)
• Data completeness and recency of editorial review (lower weight)

Ordering is not based on paid placement, affiliate relationships, advertising spend or editorial favouritism.

MHI currently has no commercial partnerships that affect rankings or editorial conclusions. Affiliate programmes are not active on ranking.

If partnerships are introduced, they will be disclosed here and on affected pages, and they will not purchase ranking position.

Report accuracy issues to hello@modernhealthindex.com. Process and independence rules are in the Editorial Policy.