Before someone books anti-wrinkle treatment, they want to know who will treat them, who decides it is suitable, what it costs and what could go wrong. We reviewed the home page, the main anti-wrinkle treatment page and, where the home page linked one, the price page of eight aesthetic clinics in Leeds and Manchester.
Most clinics named the people who treat patients. None gave a patient a way to check them. Six of the eight named a practitioner, two of them by first name only; none showed a professional register number or a link to a register entry on the pages we reviewed.
What we found on these eight clinics’ pages
Seven of the eight published at least one toxin price, in one case only for a single specialist area. Six described a consultation before treatment, six gave aftercare advice or a review appointment, and five named at least one risk or side effect. Two more clinics said only on their home page that the nurse who treats patients is a prescriber. One page said treatment might not go ahead after assessment. None of the treatment pages showed a published or reviewed date.
Five home pages named botulinum toxin or a toxin brand. In two, the name appeared in menu labels, one of which also had a home-page section promoting the treatment and the other a blog-post title. One was in a home-page price list, one in a line of home-page copy and an FAQ about the brand used, and one in a short statement that the treatment is prescription-only. MHRA guidance for clinics says home pages should not name prescription-only medicines. We record what the pages show; this review does not decide whether any clinic has breached the rules.
Download the eight-clinic observation sheet (CSV)
Three useful patterns to take from the review
1. Say who assesses and who prescribes
One Leeds clinic’s treatment page states that the treatment is a prescription-only medicine prescribed by the clinic’s own doctor, and that a medical practitioner assesses at the first consultation. Another names the doctor who leads injectable treatments and explains that a prescription follows only after his consultation.
That is what a patient needs to know, and it gives an AI assistant an accurate fact to repeat. The next step is a link to the practitioner’s register entry, so the claim can be checked.
2. Price by area, and say what changes the price
Several clinics priced treatment by the number of areas. One Leeds clinic listed each area with its appointment length and explained that the consultation fee counts towards treatment. MHRA guidance and CAP advice allow factual price lists on pages other than the home page, without promotional claims.
3. Set out risks, warning signs and the review
One Leeds clinic grouped side effects by how common they are and said which symptoms need urgent contact. A Manchester clinic gave a short summary box covering risk, duration and downtime, and said the nurse who treats the patient reviews them at two weeks.
Observed page structure, not an endorsement of any clinic or a judgement of clinical quality.
The gap: credentials a patient can check
A named practitioner is a good start. A patient, or an AI assistant, can only confirm the claim if the page links to the relevant register entry: the GMC for doctors, the NMC for nurses, the GDC for dentists, the GPhC for pharmacists or the HCPC for some other prescribers. Two Manchester pages described a nurse prescriber without a PIN or link, and one Leeds clinic’s pages carried an image file named after the NMC, with no text, number or link.
Not everyone who administers treatment is on a statutory register. That makes it more useful, not less, to say plainly who assesses, who prescribes and who administers, and to link the entries that exist.
A practical review of your own pages
Open your home page and your main treatment page and work through these questions. Use the worksheet to record the evidence, the person responsible and the next change. The tick boxes are a reading aid; they do not create a score or save your work.
- Name them, give their profession and link their register entry.
- Say so plainly, including when it is a different person from the prescriber.
- Explain the assessment, and that it may not lead to treatment.
- Price by area on an inner page, say what changes the price and date the list.
- Name common side effects, rarer risks and the symptoms that need urgent contact.
- Promote the consultation and your people; keep medicine names to factual inner pages.
Download the 10-question worksheet (CSV)
A content-review aid, not a regulatory checklist or legal advice. Your clinic’s responsible clinician and compliance adviser should approve clinical information and claims before publication.
How this relates to AI visibility
These checks identify information a patient can read and verify. They do not show whether a page is recommended by ChatGPT or cited in Google’s AI answers. Google’s current guidance emphasises useful original content, accessible pages and a good visitor experience; it does not promise inclusion. Our page on AI visibility for aesthetic clinics explains how we test the answers and work within the advertising rules.
The clinics we reviewed
We do not name the clinics. Some observations relate to advertising rules, and a page review is not a fair basis for public judgements about individual businesses. The page addresses, capture times and SHA-256 hashes are held on file. A clinic in the sample can ask us for its own coding.
“Not found in reviewed pages” means we did not find that information on the two or three pages reviewed for that clinic; it may appear elsewhere on its website or be given at consultation.
| Clinic | Named practitioner | Register number or link | Treatment page says who prescribes | Consultation described |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clinic A Manchester | Found | Not found in reviewed pages | Not found in reviewed pages | Not found in reviewed pages |
| Clinic B Manchester | Found | Not found in reviewed pages | Not found in reviewed pages | Found |
| Clinic C Leeds | Not found in reviewed pages | Not found in reviewed pages | Not found in reviewed pages | Found |
| Clinic D Leeds | Found | Not found in reviewed pages | Not found in reviewed pages | Found |
| Clinic E Leeds | Found | Not found in reviewed pages | Found | Found |
| Clinic F Manchester | Found | Not found in reviewed pages | Not found in reviewed pages | Not found in reviewed pages |
| Clinic G Leeds | Found | Not found in reviewed pages | Found | Found |
| Clinic H Manchester | Not found in reviewed pages | Not found in reviewed pages | Not found in reviewed pages | Found |
Download all twelve recorded features for each clinic (CSV)
Method, boundaries and corrections
On 23 September 2026 we searched for aesthetic clinics offering anti-wrinkle treatment in Leeds and in Manchester, using three public web searches. In result order, we took the first four clinic-run websites in each city that had a dedicated toxin treatment page linked from the home page or its treatments index. We excluded directories, marketplaces, agency pages and training courses. Two Manchester candidates returned HTTP 403 to our capture tool, one returned no readable page text and one Leeds candidate had no dedicated toxin page; each was replaced by the next candidate. One page first returned HTTP 429 and was captured on a retry. Clinic letters were assigned at random and do not follow search order. The sample is not random, and the search order favours clinics that are already easy to find.
We captured the returned HTML with UTC timestamps and SHA-256 hashes and extracted the text and image descriptions. We did not run JavaScript, so content that loads only in the browser, and anything shown only in images, was not reviewed. We did not contact clinics, book consultations, check professional registers or visit other pages.
Each clinic was coded on twelve features using a written codebook. Research and coding were assisted by AI; the counts and examples were checked against the retained captures, and an independent review re-read the sources, before publication. Presence of a feature does not establish its accuracy or completeness.
The review questions draw on MHRA guidance for providers of medicinal treatment services and CAP advice on botulinum toxin. This narrow page review does not determine whether any clinic complies with them.
Send corrections, with the page address and passage, to hello@answari.co.uk. Later corrections will be dated here.