Our Evaluation Methodology

How we evaluate and score TRT clinics across 8 key dimensions for objective, evidence-based comparisons.

Comprehensive Clinic Assessment

We evaluate each TRT clinic across 8 weighted dimensions, scoring them as Strong (3 points), Adequate (2 points), or Weak (1 point) in each category. The final score is calculated as a weighted average, providing an objective comparison framework.

Scoring Framework

Strong
3 points - Exceeds industry standards
Adequate
2 points - Meets industry standards
Weak
1 point - Below industry standards

The 8 Evaluation Dimensions

Diagnostic Protocol Quality

Weight: 20%

Thoroughness and appropriateness of initial diagnostic workup

Evaluation Criteria

  • Comprehensive hormone panel (Total T, Free T, SHBG, E2, LH, FSH)
  • Additional health markers (CBC, CMP, Lipids, PSA, TSH)
  • Symptom assessment and medical history review
  • Physical examination requirements
  • Exclusion of contraindications

Scoring Guidelines

Strong

Requires comprehensive testing with all essential markers

Adequate

Tests most important markers with some gaps

Weak

Minimal testing or skips important markers

Treatment Protocol Excellence

Weight: 15%

Quality and customization of treatment protocols

Evaluation Criteria

  • Evidence-based dosing strategies
  • Injection frequency optimization
  • Ancillary medication management (AI, HCG)
  • Protocol customization based on patient response
  • Alternative delivery methods available

Scoring Guidelines

Strong

Highly customized protocols based on individual response

Adequate

Good standard protocols with some customization

Weak

One-size-fits-all or outdated protocols

Physician Expertise & Oversight

Weight: 15%

Medical staff qualifications and involvement

Evaluation Criteria

  • Board-certified physician oversight
  • Hormone therapy specialization
  • Direct physician consultations available
  • Continuing education in hormone medicine
  • Patient communication quality

Scoring Guidelines

Strong

Hormone specialists with direct patient interaction

Adequate

Qualified physicians with adequate oversight

Weak

Limited physician involvement or non-specialists

Lab Monitoring & Safety

Weight: 15%

Ongoing monitoring and safety protocols

Evaluation Criteria

  • Regular follow-up lab schedules
  • Safety marker monitoring (Hematocrit, PSA, Liver)
  • Protocol adjustment based on labs
  • Clear guidelines for concerning values
  • Patient education on monitoring importance

Scoring Guidelines

Strong

Comprehensive monitoring with clear safety protocols

Adequate

Regular monitoring with some safety measures

Weak

Minimal monitoring or unclear safety procedures

Pricing Transparency

Weight: 10%

Clear and honest pricing structure

Evaluation Criteria

  • Upfront pricing disclosure
  • No hidden fees or charges
  • Clear breakdown of included services
  • Fair market pricing
  • Insurance billing capabilities

Scoring Guidelines

Strong

Complete transparency with fair, competitive pricing

Adequate

Generally transparent with reasonable pricing

Weak

Hidden fees, unclear pricing, or excessive charges

Telehealth Experience

Weight: 10%

Quality of remote care delivery

Evaluation Criteria

  • User-friendly platform functionality
  • Reliable video consultation quality
  • Easy prescription and lab coordination
  • Responsive customer support
  • Mobile accessibility

Scoring Guidelines

Strong

Seamless, professional telehealth experience

Adequate

Good telehealth with minor issues

Weak

Poor platform or difficult remote care

Medication Quality & Options

Weight: 10%

Quality and variety of treatment options

Evaluation Criteria

  • Pharmaceutical-grade medications
  • Multiple delivery method options
  • Reliable supply chain
  • Proper storage and shipping
  • Brand name and generic options

Scoring Guidelines

Strong

High-quality medications with multiple options

Adequate

Good quality with standard options

Weak

Limited options or quality concerns

Overall Transparency

Weight: 5%

Openness and honesty in all communications

Evaluation Criteria

  • Clear treatment expectations
  • Honest about potential risks and benefits
  • Transparent business practices
  • Open communication policies
  • Patient testimonial authenticity

Scoring Guidelines

Strong

Exceptional transparency across all areas

Adequate

Generally transparent with minor gaps

Weak

Lack of transparency or misleading information

Our Research Process

1. Information Gathering

We collect information through clinic websites, patient testimonials, direct communication with clinics, and analysis of publicly available protocols and pricing.

2. Verification & Cross-Reference

All information is verified through multiple sources and cross-referenced against industry standards and peer-reviewed medical literature.

3. Objective Scoring

Each clinic is scored independently across all dimensions using our standardized criteria, ensuring consistent and objective evaluations.

4. Continuous Updates

Clinic evaluations are regularly updated as new information becomes available, protocols change, or patient feedback indicates shifts in quality.

See Our Evaluations in Action

Browse our comprehensive clinic comparisons based on this methodology.

View Clinic Comparisons