Dr Charles, thanks a lot for your response.
While i appreciate the value of the info questions 1-3 could elicit, we would have no way to verify the truthfulness of the replies. For instance, the number of years of technicians' experience could well be inflated and we wouldn't know better.
Question no. 4 is mostly answered by the clinics, either by way of general info on the website or in specific replies.
As for point no. 5, Turkish clinics Asmed and Cosmedica clearly mention 90% and 95% regrowth assurances respectively. Why can't the other clinics do the same? At least it reassures the candidate that if there is a huge variation in the percentage achieved, the clinic will attend to the consequences. Else, if a clinic botches up 50% of the transplanted grafts, it will just turn round and say the patient responded differently.
When i raised this question here, what i really meant was parameters specific to the patient's assessment in terms of pre-op status and post-op prospects.
Like why can't a clinic state upfront what kind of density would be achievable. If it has figured out the graft numbers, it has measured the area to be covered, density then should be a matter of calculation. If not with pictures, at least on a personal examination, a surgeon should be able to give that figure.
To me, a surgeon who's unwilling to give a clear picture to the candidate "appears" to be just leaving escape routes for poor results, and that shakes the confidence in the surgeon. I'm not saying the surgeon should over-promise every candidate. What i am saying is that after taking all factors into consideration during an assessment , a surgeon should provide some clarity to the patient, a certain minimum result that the surgeon was willing to stand behind.
I have with me assessments from 5 very popular clinics. Two offer some specifics.
I wish there was a standardized format or template which all clinics would follow by way of a patient's assessment.