Original aggregate analysis
What cosmetic-care regulator records show
A layered rollup of source-specific physician and facility evidence. It does not rank surgeons, settings, procedures, outcomes, or prices.
Calculated from 1,249 merged records · Build date 2026-08-31
Geographic distribution
Largest record counts by county
This ranks records in the current dataset, not market size, quality, or availability. Differences can reflect source scope and reporting practices.
| # | County | Relative count | Records | Share |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Not Reported | 275 | 22.0% | |
| 2 | Los Angeles | 214 | 17.1% | |
| 3 | Orange | 96 | 7.7% | |
| 4 | San Diego | 59 | 4.7% | |
| 5 | Cook | 58 | 4.6% | |
| 6 | Riverside | 35 | 2.8% | |
| 7 | Santa Clara | 33 | 2.6% | |
| 8 | Sacramento | 25 | 2.0% | |
| 9 | Du Page | 23 | 1.8% | |
| 10 | San Francisco | 22 | 1.8% | |
| 11 | Alameda | 20 | 1.6% | |
| 12 | Ventura | 18 | 1.4% |
Interpretation
What these aggregates mean
They describe the public records included in this release. They are useful for seeing coverage, missingness, concentration, and reported patterns. They do not establish causation or individual quality.
Counts are computed during the same build that creates the map and record pages. A source update changes the analysis automatically.
Review sources and methodologyGo from aggregate to record