Questions to ask before agreeing to a regenerative procedure

The most useful thing a patient can do in this field is ask eight specific questions and pay attention to the shape of the answers. You are not trying to catch anyone out. You are checking whether the person proposing a procedure can describe what is in it, what authorisation it has, what the evidence shows, and who is responsible if something goes wrong. A clinic operating properly can answer all eight without difficulty, because the answers are things it already has to know.

Each question below is followed by why it matters and by what a substantive and an evasive answer tend to sound like. The pattern across the answers is usually more informative than any single one.

1. Question 1

   What exactly is being injected, and where did it come from?

   Why it matters. The four families of regenerative product differ in what they contain. "Regenerative" alone does not identify the material.

   A substantive answer sounds like. A named product or preparation, its source, and whether it is autologous or derived from cultured cells.

   Treat with caution. "A regenerative cocktail", "growth factors", or a brand name with no description of contents.

2. Question 2

   Is this conducted as treatment or as clinical research, and under what authorisation?

   Why it matters. Korean law distinguishes the two, and cell-based interventions run through institutional designation and committee review of the plan.

   A substantive answer sounds like. A direct answer naming the route, and a willingness to show the relevant designation or approval document.

   Treat with caution. Deflection to the clinic’s reputation, years of experience, or the number of patients treated.

3. Question 3

   What is the strongest published evidence for this, in my indication?

   Why it matters. Evidence for one indication does not carry to another, and mechanism studies are not clinical evidence.

   A substantive answer sounds like. A named study design and its limits — "there are meta-analyses in pattern hair loss and they graded certainty as low" is a good answer.

   Treat with caution. "Studies show", "clinically proven", or citations to laboratory work presented as clinical results.

4. Question 4

   What are the approved treatments for my diagnosis, and why are we not starting there?

   Why it matters. For several common indications, treatments with regulatory approval exist. Skipping them needs a reason.

   A substantive answer sounds like. The approved options named, with a specific clinical reason they are unsuitable or have been tried.

   Treat with caution. The approved options not mentioned at all, or dismissed generically as outdated.

5. Question 5

   What is the realistic range of outcomes, including no visible change?

   Why it matters. Trials in this field report modest effects on some measures and none on others.

   A substantive answer sounds like. A range that includes disappointment, and a stated point at which you would stop.

   Treat with caution. A single confident outcome, before-and-after photographs offered as the answer, or any guarantee.

6. Question 6

   What are the specific risks for me, given my medications and history?

   Why it matters. Bleeding risk, immune conditions, scarring history and allergies all change the assessment.

   A substantive answer sounds like. Questions back to you about your medication list and history before any answer is given.

   Treat with caution. "It is completely safe, it is natural", or "there are no side effects".

7. Question 7

   Who manages a complication, and how do I reach them after I go home?

   Why it matters. For travelling patients this is the risk most often left unplanned.

   A substantive answer sounds like. A named contact route, written records of what was administered, and an expectation of follow-up.

   Treat with caution. Vagueness, or an assumption that your home clinician will handle it without records.

8. Question 8

   Can I have in writing what was administered?

   Why it matters. A clinician treating a complication needs the material, source and dose. "Exosomes" is not sufficient.

   A substantive answer sounds like. A written record given without hesitation.

   Treat with caution. Reluctance, or an offer to describe it verbally only.

Why question one is the hard one

“What exactly is being injected” sounds basic and is frequently the question that does not get a clean answer. For exosome preparations in particular, isolation and characterisation methods vary between suppliers, and reviews of cosmetic use name that variability — inconsistent isolation, source variability, absent standardisation — as an unresolved problem in the field^[1]. The research community has published successive editions of minimum reporting standards partly because laboratories needed a shared definition to compare results at all^[3]. If the field needs a standard to agree on terms, a clinic ought to be able to say which material it is using.

The same applies at the better-evidenced end. PRP preparation varies across published trials in activation, centrifugation and schedule, which the systematic reviewers cite as a limit on pooling their results^[4]. Asking what protocol a clinic uses is a reasonable question with a real answer.

If you are travelling for this

Questions seven and eight carry more weight for you than for a local patient. The critical review literature on stem cell tourism describes clinics that provide little pre-travel health information and patients who return home to complications that nobody has planned for^[2]. Get the written record before you leave, not after something goes wrong. Identify, before you travel, which clinician at home would manage a complication, and tell them what you are considering.

One thing to notice about a good clinic

A clinic answering these well will sometimes tell you not to have the procedure. That is a positive signal rather than a lost sale — the approved treatments for your diagnosis may not have been tried, the diagnosis itself may not be settled, or the expected benefit may not justify the cost and the needle. A consultation that cannot end in “not this” is not really a consultation.

Written by the Stem Cell Seoul editorial team and medically reviewed by a Korean Board-Certified Dermatologist (AAD International Fellow · ASLMS member). Last reviewed 2026-08-30.