For practitioners
A quick snapshot of which common record elements their current workflow routinely captures.
For academies, associations and educator networks
Give your practitioner community a study worth contributing to
Share a three-minute, no-contact study that gives every participant an immediate workflow-coverage snapshot and builds a public benchmark only after a transparent evidence threshold is met.
- No member list
- Participants open a public link and choose for themselves whether to respond.
- No patient data
- The instrument contains categorical workflow questions only.
- No endorsement required
- Sharing the study does not imply product adoption or recommendation.
A better reason to share
Original evidence instead of another downloadable handout
The project is designed to become a citable annual reference about aesthetic injectable documentation. Before publication it is useful as a self-check; after the evidence gate it becomes a transparent aggregate dataset with visible methods and limitations.
For educators
A neutral discussion prompt about documentation completeness, retrieval and operational friction.
For the sector
An open methodology and aggregate findings that can be linked without sharing private member or clinical data.
Three low-friction ways to contribute
- 1
Link to the study
Add the public study invitation to a resource page, newsletter or course follow-up. Keep your own editorial framing.
- 2
Invite one cohort
Ask one qualified practitioner cohort to answer independently. We do not request attendance or contact lists.
- 3
Review the instrument
Send methodological feedback separately. Suggested changes are versioned and never rewritten into already collected responses.
Ready-to-publish distribution kit
Share a measured study link in minutes
Approved campaign links use one pseudonymous code to count completed responses by distribution route. The code identifies the link, not a participant, and no member list changes hands.
Generic link shown. An approved campaign link can add a pseudonymous distribution code.
Use only after the organization has approved the placement and wording. Permanent editorial links may use the clean canonical URL instead.
Research and publication boundaries
- No names, email addresses, clinic names, account IDs or free-text answers in the study.
- No patient, treatment, image or clinical-record data.
- At least 30 quality-reviewed responses before overall findings are published.
- At least 10 included responses before any future demographic subgroup is reported.
- Self-selection, non-random recruitment and commercial authorship are disclosed with the findings.
Clinically reviewed by Dr. Adi Zoabi, MD
Supporting practitioner resources
Local treatment-record builder
Create a local documentation draft and export it without transmitting entered record data.
Open toolTreatment-documentation checklist
Review common context, product, lot, site, photo and follow-up fields.
View checklistSoftware evaluation scorecard
Compare products against the same weighted operational criteria and critical gates.
View scorecardDiscuss distribution or methodology
Would your community benefit from this benchmark?
Tell us the role, country and channel you serve. We will propose a bounded, transparent way to share the study; no member data or endorsement is part of the request.
Research partnership questions
Do we have to endorse Aesthetic Pass?
No. You may describe the study in your own words and evaluate it independently. Sharing the link does not create a product endorsement.
Will you receive our member list?
No. Participants use the public page directly. The standard model never asks a partner to transfer contact or patient data.
Can we see findings before publication?
The public collection count is visible. Findings remain locked for everyone until the quality-reviewed threshold is met; the methodology is already public.
Is this clinical education?
No. The study concerns operational documentation workflows, not injection technique, dosing, diagnosis or treatment decisions.