“But a lot of the reviews say it did nothing” — why the same treatment gets opposite reviews
We hear this often in consultation. And having looked things up before coming is the right instinct. But when the same product carries “life-changing” and “a waste of money” side by side, that is usually not about the product. Separating what a review can tell you from what it cannot changes what you get out of reading the very same text.
The short answer
There are usually seven reasons the same product attracts opposite reviews. (1) It was not the right product for that concern to begin with; (2) the number of sessions and the intervals were not enough; (3) the kind of change expected was different; (4) they were looking at different points in time; (5) it was a different preparation under the same brand name; (6) the photographs were taken under different conditions; (7) the treatment was planned differently. A review tells you about an experience, but it cannot tell you about an indication. And in Korea, the Medical Service Act prohibits medical advertising that uses patient treatment testimonials in a way likely to mislead consumers about treatment effect — so a clinic openly posting reviews is itself something worth a second look.
Why this needs saying
Reading reviews before you come is a natural thing to do. We do it ourselves when we buy something. The problem is that reviews of aesthetic treatments behave very differently from reviews of other products.
The same coffee machine is the same object whoever buys it. But a treatment with the same name becomes, in practice, a different treatment depending on whose face, in which plane, how much of it and across how many visits it went. That is why the reviews split to the extremes.
This piece is not telling you to distrust reviews. It is saying let us separate the questions reviews answer well from the questions they do not. And parts of it are inconvenient for us. When a clinic writes about reviews it usually ends at “do not trust other clinics' reviews, only ours”, and that is not what this column is for.
Seven reasons opposite reviews appear
Any one of the following will split the reviews of the same product. In practice two or three usually overlap.
| What differed | How it shows up in a review |
|---|---|
| 1. Concern and product did not match | The commonest reason. However much of a product that works on skin texture you put into a face that has lost volume, the hollow does not fill. The reverse is equally true. The review this produces is “I saw no change at all” |
| 2. Not enough sessions, or wrong intervals | Judging a treatment designed as a course after a single session. With a product such as Rejuran, where three to four sessions at three-to-four-week intervals count as one course, the change is hard to feel after session one |
| 3. A different kind of change was expected | If someone expected to “look visibly different” and what arrived was a settling of texture and makeup sitting better, one person is satisfied and another disappointed. Both saw the same result |
| 4. They looked at different points in time | Boosters change over weeks rather than the moment they go in. A review written two weeks after treatment and one written three months after are looking at different points. Equally, a review saying “great result” while swelling is still present is not an accurate observation either |
| 5. A different preparation under the same name | Brands frequently contain several products. Within Rejuran alone, Healer, HB and HB PLUS differ in composition. Reviews normally give only the brand name |
| 6. The photographs were taken differently | Change the lighting, angle, expression, makeup or camera processing and the photograph changes without any treatment at all. Before-and-after photographs shot under identical conditions are rarer than people think |
| 7. The treatment was planned differently | Even with the same product at the same dose, the result depends on which plane it went into and how it was distributed. This part is almost never written in a review, and even when it is, the person who received it may not know |
What reviews answer well, and what they do not
The same review is more or less reliable depending on the question you bring to it.
| Fairly trustworthy | Hard to learn from a review |
|---|---|
| How much it hurt | Whether this product suits my concern |
| How many days the bruising and swelling lasted | How long the effect will last |
| How many days until they were back to normal life | How much actually went into that person, and into which plane |
| Whether the explanation was thorough | Whether a change in a photograph is the treatment or the conditions |
| What the clinic did when something went wrong | The real frequency of side effects |
The right-hand column holds the more important questions, and it is exactly where reviews are weakest. Which is why choosing a clinic from reviews can work, but choosing a treatment from reviews does not.
Side-effect frequency especially. People who are delighted and people who are seriously unhappy write; people who found it “fine, nothing special” almost never do. So the distribution of reviews has a different shape from the distribution of actual experience.
Advertising with treatment testimonials is prohibited in Korea
Many people do not know this. The Medical Service Act prohibits medical advertising containing patient treatment testimonials in a way likely to make consumers form a mistaken impression of treatment effect. In other words, a clinic gathering good reviews and using them in advertising is, in principle, not permitted.
So if a clinic's own channels carry a tidy collection of glowing reviews alongside before-and-after photographs, it is worth pausing to consider whether that accumulated naturally. Conversely, a clinic not putting reviews front and centre may not be hiding something but keeping to the rules.
That applies to us too. We publish no before-and-after photographs and no patient reviews on our website. Instead we chose to write, in the clinical reference library, how far the evidence for each product actually goes and what has not been verified. That fits the rules, and we think it is more use to a decision.
So how should you read reviews
- Look for reviews that say what the concern was. Far more useful than a review carrying only a product name. Whether that person's starting point resembles yours is the crux
- Check the timing. If it does not say how many days after treatment it was written, you cannot tell what point that judgement belongs to
- Set the two extremes aside for a moment. Rave and scathing reviews carry the least information. A mid-toned, long piece of writing is usually more accurate
- Read for “it hurt this much · it lasted this many days · the explanation was this thorough”. That is the part reviews genuinely answer well
- With photographs, look at the conditions. Whether the lighting, angle and expression match. If they do not, that photograph is a poor guide to the size of the change
- And bring it to consultation. “I read this review — would it go this way for me?” is the form of question we can answer best
Sometimes “it did nothing” is simply true
Leaving this out would make the piece unbalanced. The seven reasons above explain the cases where the conditions, not the product, were at fault; they do not mean every “it did nothing” is a misreading.
There genuinely are product families with thin evidence. Among the products we use, Re2O and CellREDM have insufficient published data on long-term maintenance, so our own references do not state that they “last so many months”, and for the three lifting devices we wrote that we could not verify any published clinical trial of the device itself. In territory like that, wide individual variation is exactly what you would expect, and the review that says “I honestly cannot tell” may be an accurate observation.
So in consultation we chose to separate out “the evidence here is thick, and here it is thin”. If a treatment is one where reviews are likely to vary widely, we think you are better off knowing that in advance.
Frequently asked questions
Should I avoid a product that has poor reviews?
Is it odd if a clinic website has no reviews?
Are before-and-after photographs reliable?
A lot of reviews say 'I had one session and it did nothing'.
How should I read a clinic whose good reviews suddenly multiplied?
Then what should I use to choose a clinic?
Is it all right to bring up a review in consultation?
How does Miso Clinic handle reviews?
Who wrote this
Written and reviewed by Lee Chi-Hak, MD, medical director of Miso Clinic in Daegu, South Korea. Miso Clinic publishes no before-and-after photographs and no patient reviews on its website; instead, the clinical reference library records product by product how far the evidence extends and which items remain unverified.
| Medical director | Lee Chi-Hak, MD |
|---|---|
| Address | 4F Bombom Building, 125 Dongdeok-ro, Jung-gu, Daegu, South Korea · Exit 1, Kyungpook National University Hospital Station |
| Phone | +82-53-428-2700 |
| Hours | Weekdays 11:00–19:00 (lunch 13:00–14:00) / Saturday 10:00–16:00 (no lunch break) / Closed Sundays and public holidays |
| Columns | All clinical columns |
| Reference library | All booster and device references |
| Other languages | 한국어 · 日本語 · 简体中文 · Español |
References
- Article 56 of Korea's Medical Service Act sets out the prohibited categories of medical advertising, and these include advertising containing patient treatment testimonials and other content likely to make consumers form a mistaken impression of treatment effect. The text above conveys the intent of that provision; whether any particular case constitutes a breach depends on the facts.
- The statements above about sessions and duration (Rejuran three to four sessions at three-to-four-week intervals, GOURI one session as the baseline) are Miso Clinic's clinical practice, not product licence terms or society guidelines. The detail is set out in each product reference.
- The insufficiency of long-term maintenance data for Re2O and CellREDM, and the absence of any verified published clinical trial of the devices themselves for the three lifting devices, are the same statements made in the individual product references.
- The tendency for the distribution of reviews to differ from the distribution of actual experience (over-sampling of the satisfied and dissatisfied extremes) is observed in online reviews generally and is not peculiar to aesthetic treatments. No figures are cited in the text above.
Everything in this column is general information and does not replace medical diagnosis or treatment. Effects and side effects vary with individual skin condition, age and underlying illness, and the same result is not guaranteed for everyone. Any decision to proceed should be made in an in-person consultation with a physician.