At healthsupplementsexpert.com, we’re committed to providing accurate, science-based information about health supplements. Our readers rely on us to cut through marketing hype and deliver honest, well-researched evaluations. This page explains our rigorous review and fact-checking methodology.

Our Review Process

1. Initial Research & Selection

How we choose supplements to review:

Trending and popular products in the market
Reader requests and questions
Emerging supplement categories with scientific interest
Products with significant health claims that warrant investigation

What we don’t review:

Products with potentially dangerous ingredients
Supplements making illegal disease-treatment claims
Products from companies with a history of FDA warning letters or legal issues
Supplements with proprietary blends that don’t disclose ingredient amounts

2. Data Collection & Analysis

For each supplement we review, we collect comprehensive data from multiple sources:

Product Information:

Complete ingredient list and dosages
Manufacturer claims and marketing material
Pricing across multiple retailers
Manufacturing practices and certifications
Company history and reputation

Scientific Research:

Peer-reviewed studies on individual ingredients
Clinical trials on the specific formula (when available)
Meta-analyses and systematic reviews
Research from reputable medical journals
Position statements from relevant health organizations

Consumer Experience:

Verified customer reviews across multiple platforms
Social media discussions and feedback
Consumer complaint databases
Expert opinions from healthcare professionals

3. Evidence Evaluation

We assess the quality of scientific evidence using a tiered approach:

Strength of Evidence Scale:

Strong Evidence: Multiple large, well-designed human clinical trials with consistent results
Moderate Evidence: Small or limited human trials with generally positive results
Preliminary Evidence: Animal studies, in vitro research, or very limited human studies
Theoretical Benefit: Based on mechanism of action, but lacking direct studies
Insufficient Evidence: Conflicting research or too limited to draw conclusions
Evidence Against: Research suggesting ineffectiveness or safety concerns

We consider factors such as:

Study design (randomized controlled trials given highest weight)
Sample size and study duration
Statistical significance of results
Whether studies were conducted independently or funded by manufacturers
Consistency of findings across multiple studies
Whether results have been replicated by different research teams

4. Content Creation

Our content goes through a structured development process:

Initial Draft:

Written by subject matter experts with backgrounds in nutrition, pharmacology, or relevant health sciences
Structured to address key reader questions about efficacy, safety, and value
Includes comprehensive analysis of ingredients, dosages, and formulation

Primary Fact-Check:

All scientific claims verified against original research sources
Manufacturer claims compared against available evidence
Dosages evaluated against clinical research
Price analysis and value assessment

Editorial Review:

Content edited for clarity, accuracy, and completeness
Ensuring balanced coverage of both benefits and limitations
Application of consistent rating criteria
Implementation of our evidence-based approach

5. Expert Review

Before publication, content undergoes expert review:

Scientific Reviewer: Reviews all scientific claims and evidence assessments
Medical Reviewer (when applicable): Reviews content discussing specific health conditions
Regulatory Compliance Check: Ensures content complies with FTC guidelines and doesn’t make disease claims

6. Regular Updates

Our commitment to accuracy doesn’t end at publication:

Reviews are updated when significant new research emerges
Product reformulations trigger complete reassessments
Reader feedback and questions may prompt additional research
Annual comprehensive review of all content

Our Rating Criteria

We evaluate supplements across multiple dimensions:

Evidence-Based Efficacy (40% of overall rating)

Quality and quantity of supporting research
Alignment between claims and evidence
Proper dosing based on clinical studies
Ingredient bioavailability and formulation quality

Safety & Quality (30% of overall rating)

Safety profile of ingredients
Third-party testing and certifications
Manufacturing standards and transparency
Absence of unnecessary fillers or potential allergens
Appropriate warnings and contraindications

Value (20% of overall rating)

Cost per serving relative to ingredient quality
Comparison with similar products
Dosage adequacy for price point
Subscription options and guarantees

User Experience (10% of overall rating)

Taste, mixability, and convenience (when applicable)
Serving size and frequency
Verified customer satisfaction
Customer service quality

Fact-Checking Standards

Our fact-checking process follows these core principles:

Primary Sources

We prioritize information from:

Peer-reviewed scientific journals
Official government health agencies (NIH, FDA, etc.)
Major medical organizations and associations
Direct product information from manufacturers

Verification Process

Each factual claim in our content must be:

Verified by at least two independent sources when possible
Linked to original research when citing scientific studies
Checked against the most recent available data
Qualified appropriately when evidence is limited

Citation Standards

We follow these citation practices:

Direct links to scientific studies cited
Proper attribution for expert opinions
Clear differentiation between scientific consensus and emerging research
Appropriate context for research findings

Handling Conflicting Information

When research findings conflict, we:

Present multiple perspectives fairly
Weigh evidence based on study quality and relevance
Disclose limitations and contradictions
Avoid cherry-picking only favorable studies

Transparency in Affiliate Relationships

Our commitment to factual accuracy exists alongside our affiliate business model:

Editorial decisions and ratings are made independently from affiliate considerations
We recommend products based on merit regardless of affiliate relationships
Our review team operates separately from our business development team
Writers and reviewers are prohibited from accepting incentives from manufacturers
We disclose our affiliate relationships prominently

Corrections Policy

We’re committed to correcting errors promptly:

Factual errors are corrected as soon as they’re discovered
Updates are noted transparently at the top of revised articles
Major revisions trigger a new expert review process
Readers can report potential errors through our contact form

Our Expert Team

Our content is created, reviewed, and fact-checked by professionals with relevant credentials:

Content Writers: Nutritionists, dietitians, and science writers with degrees in relevant fields
Scientific Reviewers: Researchers and academics with advanced degrees in nutritional science, pharmacology, or related disciplines
Medical Reviewers: Healthcare professionals who review content related to specific health conditions

Full biographies of our team members are available on our “About Us” page.

Contact Us About Our Review Process

We welcome questions about our review methodology and fact-checking process. If you notice an error, have concerns about our analysis, or want to suggest improvements to our process, please contact us:

Email: [email protected]

These Review Guidelines were last updated on July 22, 2025. We review and update our methodology annually to ensure it reflects current scientific standards and best practices in health journalism.