How we build your report
Submit your case
Tell us your procedure, goals, history, and any providers you’re already considering. Takes about 5 minutes. You can use a first name or alias — your identity stays confidential.
We do the research
Our research team draws from Korean and English-language sources most people can’t access. This includes but is not limited to cross-referencing reviews, verifying credentials, screening for red flags, and matching providers to your specific situation.
You get the report
Within 72 hours, you receive a structured intelligence report with your matched surgeons, evidence-cited analysis, risk flags, and questions to ask your surgeon. You make the decision — with the full picture.
What’s in a Surgeon Intelligence Report
Methodology, fully visible
Korean primary sources surface candidates from your intake. Credentials verified against government registries (HIRA, KSPRS, KAHF). Output tiered by research-evidence density, plus the candidates we considered and dropped, with reasons. Tier reflects what we found, not what we recommend.
Deep-source analysis
Every surgeon is researched across verified sources: medical journals, Korean and English review platforms, international aggregators, professional registries, credential databases, firsthand accounts, and published medical research.
Red flag screening
Incentivized review patterns, Korean Consumer Agency complaints, ghost surgery indicators, and reputation manipulation signals — the things English searches can’t find.
Credential verification
Cross-checked directly against KSPRS, KSAPS, KHIDI, HIRA, and MoHW records. Education and academic appointments verified against the surgeon's own clinic claims so any inconsistency gets flagged.
Side-by-side comparison
Side-by-side tables across 15+ data points: KSPRS verification, years in practice, review volume across Sungyesa, Naver Place, Gangnam Unni, Babitalk, and Yeoshin, 5-dimension patient ratings, revision-specialism convergence, unmasked costs, and cross-shopped clinics. Compare on evidence, not marketing.
Shaped by your intake
Procedure, history, aesthetic preferences, budget, deal-breakers. Every detail you give us drives the research itself, not just the shortlist. The Korean platforms we query, the red flags we prioritize, the pricing analysis, all filtered through what you told us.
Looking into non-surgical treatments? Our Cosmetic & Beauty Treatment Report covers Botox, fillers, skin rejuvenation, and more — same research process, same independence.
See what’s inside a report
Real excerpts from a completed Surgeon Intelligence Report. Identifying details redacted.
| Factor | Surgeon A | Surgeon B | Surgeon C |
|---|---|---|---|
| KSPRS Board Cert | Verified, 2008 | Verified, 2006 (Ph.D.) | Verified, 2015 |
| KSAPS Aesthetic Membership | Member | Member, Academic Committee | Not listed |
| KHIDI Foreign Patient Registered | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| MoHW Sanctions | None on record | None on record | None on record |
| Years in Practice | 18 | 20 | 11 |
| Sungyesa Reviews (attributed) | 47 | 23 (clinic 814) | 18 |
| Naver Place Review Surface | 312 | 167 | 89 |
| Gangnam Unni Reviews (attributed) | 92 | 65 | 24 |
| Babitalk Verified Reviews | 32 | 22 | 11 |
| Yeoshin Ticket Reviews | 15 | 8 | 4 |
| 5-Dim Patient Rating Avg | 4.6 / 5 | 4.2 / 5 | 3.8 / 5 |
| Revision Specialism Signal | Strong | Strong | Moderate |
| OR CCTV Advertised | Yes | Not advertised | Yes |
| English Support | Limited (translator) | Excellent | Good |
| Pricing Visibility | Verified samples | Premium | Verified samples |
| Red Flags | High complex revision fee | None identified | Eye is secondary specialty |
| Fit Rating | ★★★★★ | ★★★★★ | ★★★☆☆ |
A research team that works in hours, not weeks
Every report is the work of a human researcher with AI tooling, not the output of a single prompt. AI compresses the time. Human judgment compresses the noise.
We run parallel research streams across distinct workstreams:
When a new candidate surfaces or sources contradict each other, we go back and verify. Cross-platform agreement is the bar. A claim that appears on only one source gets flagged, not published.
Each report draws on verified primary sources across peer-reviewed medical journals, Korean professional society databases, review platforms in both Korean and English, international aggregators, surgical video documentation, regulatory filings, and community forums frequented by medical tourism patients.
The kind of work that would typically take a medical tourism consultant, a Korean-language researcher, and a medical research reviewer weeks of coordination. We deliver it in 72 hours.
Why this can’t be done with a Google search
The most important information about Korean surgeons is written in Korean, published on gated Korean platforms, and filed in Korean databases. English speakers can’t access it — and translation alone doesn’t solve the problem.
What you can find in English
- Top-10 listicles from agency blogs
- Clinic-submitted before/after photos
- Social media marketing
- RealSelf profiles (clinics pay for visibility)
- Reddit threads (valuable but fragmented)
What we access in Korean
- Top 10 Korean surgical review platforms
- Korean medical board certification records
- Korean Consumer Agency complaint filings
- Clinic reputation and review pattern analysis
- Korean-language communities and forums
“Can’t I just use ChatGPT?”
You can. Here’s what you’ll get: a generic list of the same 5 surgeons that every English-language blog already recommends, pulled from marketing sites, with no source verification, no Korean-language data, and a real risk of hallucinated content presented as fact.
What you won’t get: credential checks against Korean medical registries, review analysis across gated Korean platforms that require phone verification to even access, complaint record screening from the Korean Consumer Agency, ghost surgery red flags, any source citations at all, or an anti-hallucination audit before delivery.
The difference isn’t the tool. It’s the sources, the access, and the human research team behind every report.