TL;DR
Compare implant agency examples only after matching the service, counting unit, observation age, staffing and cost scope. A consultation, a patient, an arch and a procedure are different units. Use a comparability audit to identify evidence worth considering and request what is missing. A genuine testimonial does not establish the results your practice should expect.
Convert the sales story into an evidence request
An agency may show a practice's revenue and another may report attended consultations. Those examples are not competing estimates until you understand what each measures. Begin with the actual question: can the provider demonstrate relevant work and explain whether its evidence applies to your acquisition decision?
GetPatients has a commercial interest in healthcare visibility services. This audit should apply to its examples as well. It supplies no ranking, recommendation or conclusion about an unnamed vendor.
For U.S. advertising, FTC guidance explains that specific-result endorsements can communicate expected results; a generic ‘results vary’ disclaimer does not necessarily correct that impression. The guidance is context-dependent and does not decide whether a particular agency example is lawful. FTC endorsement guidance. As a buyer, request underlying definitions and evidence rather than treating a video as a forecast.
Build an implant case-study comparability audit
Give each candidate the same blank audit. Ask for a suitably limited summary, not identifiable patient records or confidential clinical details. Mark unavailable evidence plainly.
| Comparison field | Evidence to request | Why it changes the interpretation |
|---|---|---|
| Promoted service | Single-tooth, full-arch, mixed or undefined scope | A blended implant total can hide a different inquiry mix |
| Counted unit | People, consultations, arches, procedures or another stated event | The same person can contribute different units under different definitions |
| Starting group | Defined inquiries, inclusion rule and duplicate treatment | The result needs an identifiable denominator |
| Observation age | Inquiry arrival periods and reporting cutoff | Older groups have different opportunity for later events |
| Actual event | Scheduled, attended, clinically assessed, treatment event or collection | Each establishes a different thing |
| Practice support | Setter, coordinator, clinician and appointment access arrangements | The provider may rely on work your office cannot supply |
| Included costs | Media, management, setting, software, office handling and delivery scope | Revenue alone does not establish contribution |
| Evidence and permission | Source of verification and authorized use of the example | A selected story is not an independently audited sample |
Do not combine the fields into a weighted score that makes a missing denominator disappear. Identify whether each example is comparable, useful only for a narrower point, or insufficient for the claim being made.
Reconcile the units before calculating anything
Ask the agency to state explicitly whether ‘cases’ means people, arches or treatment events. If a person can appear repeatedly, ask how that is represented. Do not infer a people count from an arch count or a completed treatment count from a consultation record.
Check the surgical and restorative scope behind a treatment label. If the example involves different providers for those parts, ask which work and collections belong to the advertised practice and which fall outside it. Have qualified practice staff verify the event descriptions. An example of a surgical consultation cannot stand in for a completed restorative pathway, and an outside provider's work should not silently become the agency client's result.
For cost per attended consultation, the numerator must contain the defined acquisition costs and the denominator must contain attended consultations from the same included inquiry group. If a vendor cannot supply that group, retain its totals as separate observations. Do not manufacture a conversion rate by dividing its published revenue by another report's inquiry count.
Use the event dictionary to establish units and the source-check method to inspect support. This audit adds the implant-specific comparability problem: whether service mix and arch-based sales language describe the same operational opportunity.
Examine the work behind the result
Request the public offer, landing-page approach, scheduling scope and actual responsibilities that accompanied the example. An appointment-setting service supported by an experienced practice coordinator is a different engagement from media management alone. Ask what your team would need to supply and whether the quoted scope includes the relevant work.
Record differences that cannot be normalized: a different office catchment, unknown existing demand, incomplete records or a different consultation offer. These limits need not disqualify the agency from explaining its work. They do limit how confidently its results can inform your budget.
Avoid asking for patient screenshots to prove the story. A provider should be able to explain its metric definitions and methods without turning a sales meeting into an unnecessary disclosure. Have your practice's responsible reviewer assess any proposed data exchange.
Send a precise missing-evidence request
Use this wording as a purchasing prompt: ‘Please define the service, people-versus-arch unit, included inquiry group, observation cutoff, actual event and full cost scope behind this example. Describe the practice staffing required. Identify what is verified, selected, estimated or unavailable. We will use it to assess relevant work, not as a promised result.’
After the response, decide what the evidence supports. It may show a useful page design while failing to establish acquisition economics. It may demonstrate a coherent reporting process while leaving your local opportunity unknown. You can request a scoped diagnostic or bounded trial when historical examples do not answer the purchase question.
Finish with a comparison note: comparable element ___; material difference ___; missing evidence ___; decision affected ___; next request ___. That is more useful than declaring the agency with the largest headline total the winner.
Frequently asked questions
Is a video from a dentist enough proof?
It may convey an attributed experience, but it does not supply all definitions or establish typical results. Inspect the exact claim, evidence and relationship behind it.
Can we compare revenue if consultation definitions differ?
Keep the evidence separate until the relevant units and included groups are understood. Revenue does not repair an unclear consultation denominator or establish net contribution.
What if the agency cannot disclose a client's numbers?
Respect legitimate limits. Ask for a suitably limited explanation, reporting demonstration or public work sample. Judge what it establishes and leave unverifiable performance claims out of the comparison.