TL;DR
Judge a refractive marketing case study by what it can demonstrate for your purchase decision. Check the original LASIK offer against the later recorded procedure, then compare people-versus-eye units, brand context and practice support. Separate a useful work sample from a forecast. Missing comparability evidence should narrow the conclusion rather than be filled with assumptions.
Identify the claim you are being asked to buy
A headline about gross revenue might support a narrow historical statement if its records and definitions are reliable. It does not establish what your practice will collect, what the agency caused or whether the arrangement fits your service mix. Begin by writing the actual sales proposition in plain language.
Does the vendor claim expertise in refractive messaging, a functioning consultation process, comparable acquisition costs or repeatable financial results? Each needs different evidence. A public landing page can show presentation work while leaving its conversion and contribution unverified.
GetPatients has a commercial interest in healthcare visibility services. Apply this assessment to its examples and competing proposals. This is an original purchasing framework, not an agency ranking or an assertion that any named vendor has failed its checks.
Use a refractive comparability worksheet
Request a limited, appropriately shareable explanation rather than patient-level records. Mark each field comparable, materially different or unknown, and state how that affects the decision.
| Comparison field | Evidence to request | What a mismatch changes |
|---|---|---|
| Promoted procedure mix | Actual LASIK, other refractive service or blended scope | A broad surgical total may not describe the offer you plan to promote |
| Consultation offer | Administrative conversation, clinical evaluation, paid or otherwise verified terms | Inquiry behavior and practice workload may concern a different invitation |
| Counted unit | People, eyes, evaluations, procedures or financial events | Units cannot be substituted to enlarge a people-based acquisition claim |
| Starting brand awareness | Defined prior branded demand and existing referral context, where known | Campaign may support an established name rather than demonstrate new discovery |
| Geography and access | Actual service area, consultation sites and procedure arrangement | Travel and location choices may differ from your operating model |
| Practice support | Coordinator responsibilities, response coverage and available evaluation access | Results may depend on work absent from your quote |
| Acquisition cohort | Inclusion rule, original receipt period and observation method | Recent inquiries cannot be compared with fully observed historical groups without qualification |
| Financial boundary | Collections, refunds, costs and organizations included | Gross billed or quoted value does not establish practice contribution |
Do not average these fields into a reassuring score. Missing units or an undefined financial boundary can prevent a performance conclusion even when the creative sample is useful.
Investigate the eye-based denominator
Ask the vendor what 'procedures' and 'cases' mean. If the source counts eyes while your planning question concerns people attending evaluations, keep those units separate. Do not mechanically translate between them without actual evidence of the counted events.
Also ask whether a later procedure belongs to the promoted practice or a separate facility, and which organization's financial event appears in the example. An agency should not receive credit for another organization's collections without a clearly defined and supportable claim.
Clinical suitability remains outside the agency's performance label. FDA describes an eye-doctor evaluation to determine LASIK candidacy. FDA's evaluation guidance. A case study counting forms as candidates has not established that later clinical milestone.
Reconcile the advertised offer with the later procedure
A blended refractive result can hide a change between what the person first asked about and what the qualified team later recorded. Ask for a summary that preserves those categories. Marketing must not determine why a clinical choice changed or treat another procedure as the desired outcome for an individual.
| Supported original request | Later verified event | Permitted comparison |
|---|---|---|
| LASIK inquiry | LASIK procedure recorded | A later LASIK event within the original inquiry cohort, with people and eye units still separate |
| LASIK inquiry | Another refractive procedure recorded | A different later-service outcome within that cohort, not a completed LASIK procedure |
| Cataract referral or general eye-care inquiry | Refractive procedure recorded | Separate origin; do not recast it as a LASIK campaign inquiry without evidence |
| LASIK inquiry | Evaluation attended, no procedure event established | Verified evaluation activity; no assumed surgical revenue |
These are conditional reporting tests, not a claim about typical pathways. Reject a LASIK-specific forecast built from an undivided surgical total. If the vendor cannot separate the original offer and later event, use the example only for the narrower work it demonstrates.
Examine how much demand already existed
Ask whether the example separated new service discovery, prior patient relationships, professional referrals and branded searches. Unknown origin should remain unknown. An established surgeon's name may be central to an example without making the agency's work useless. It changes what the example can establish for an unfamiliar practice.
Request the actual offer and responsibilities that accompanied the result. Was the agency buying traffic only, managing pages, providing administrative response support or relying on an internal coordinator? Which of those tasks are in your proposed agreement? Comparable creative without comparable operating support is a limited basis for projecting economics.
Use the agency assessment guide to examine reasoning and deliverables. The source-to-claim guide helps judge what the underlying evidence actually supports.
Send a precise missing-source request
Use this request as a starting point: 'Please reconcile the original LASIK offer with later recorded procedure categories, and define the consultation offer, people-versus-eye units, starting brand context, included inquiry cohort, observation cutoff, practice support and financial boundary. Identify verified facts, estimates, selected examples and unavailable evidence. Explain which part is relevant to our proposed scope.'
For U.S. advertising, FTC guidance requires evidence for express and implied claims before an ad runs. FTC's substantiation explanation. That legal reference does not determine whether a particular vendor's presentation is lawful. As a buyer, use it as a reason to ask for support rather than accept an attractive implication as a forecast.
Decide what remains useful after the limitations are stated. You may accept a page sample, request a reporting demonstration, commission a bounded diagnostic or decline a purchase that depends on an unsupported financial promise. Record the accepted evidence and unresolved inference separately.
Frequently asked questions
Must the example be from our exact city?
No example will match every condition. Identify material differences and restrict the conclusion accordingly. Exact geography alone does not repair missing units or unsupported economics.
Is a large revenue headline useless?
It can be investigated as a defined historical claim. Ask which organization, event, cohort and costs it includes before treating it as purchasing evidence.
What if confidentiality prevents disclosure?
Respect legitimate limits and request a suitable reporting demonstration or public work sample. Keep unverifiable results out of the performance comparison without demanding sensitive records.