Five criteria.
One consistent score.
Every supplement we review is assessed against the same five criteria. Weights reflect what matters most to consumers: that ingredients actually work and that what's on the label is what's in the bottle.
The final score is a weighted average of all five criteria, on a scale of 1–10. A product must score at least 6.0 overall to receive a "Recommended" designation.
Score breakdown — example product
How well the active ingredients are supported by peer-reviewed human clinical trials. RCTs carry the most weight; in-vitro and animal studies noted but weighted lower.
Whether a product uses branded, standardized, or third-party tested ingredients. Proprietary blends without disclosed per-ingredient doses are penalized here.
Whether the stated amounts match the doses used in the clinical studies we reviewed. Under-dosed products cannot be expected to replicate published outcomes.
Known adverse effects, contraindications, interaction risks, and whether the product has been subject to any regulatory actions or voluntary recalls.
Cost per effective dose compared to comparable products in the same category. We consider the monthly cost at the recommended serving size.
Seven steps,
no shortcuts.
A typical NutraDiscovery review takes 10–15 hours of research across multiple sessions. Here is exactly what happens before a score is published.
We choose products based on reader requests, market prominence, or category gaps in our coverage. No brand may pay or request to be reviewed.
We document every ingredient, its form, and its stated dose from the product's Supplement Facts panel. We cross-reference against the brand's current website and any available third-party lab reports.
We search PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Examine.com for peer-reviewed studies on each active ingredient. We note study type, sample size, dose used, and outcome relevance.
We compare the product's ingredient amounts against the doses used in the strongest clinical studies. Each ingredient is flagged as under-dosed, within range, or over the studied range.
We check FDA MedWatch, Health Canada, and the NIH Office of Dietary Supplements for any adverse event reports, warnings, or recalls associated with the product or its ingredients.
Each of the five criteria is scored independently on a 1–10 scale. Scores are applied before writing begins so that the editorial narrative follows the data, not the other way around.
The review is written, all citations verified, and the final text reviewed for accuracy by a second editor before going live. Reviews are updated whenever a product changes formulation or significant new research is published.
Where we look — and what we trust
We cite only peer-reviewed research and authoritative regulatory or reference databases. Brand-sponsored studies are noted and weighted accordingly; we rely on independent replications wherever they exist.
PubMed / MEDLINE
Our primary database for peer-reviewed clinical trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses on supplement ingredients.
Cochrane Library
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses considered the gold standard for evidence synthesis in clinical research.
NIH Office of Dietary Supplements
Authoritative fact sheets on vitamins, minerals, and botanicals including safety upper limits and drug interactions.
Examine.com
Independent human-effect matrices that aggregate study outcomes by ingredient. Used as a secondary reference for dose ranges.
FDA MedWatch & Health Canada
Adverse event reports, warning letters, and voluntary recalls relevant to specific products or ingredients.
Third-party lab reports
NSF International, USP, Informed Sport, and ConsumerLab certifications are noted where available and factored into ingredient integrity scores.
What we will
never do.
Our editorial independence is non-negotiable. These are the commitments we make to every reader, unconditionally.
Reviews are living documents
A supplement review is only as useful as it is current. Formulations change, new clinical trials are published, and regulatory guidance evolves. We treat published reviews as living documents, not finished artifacts.
Reviews are flagged for re-evaluation when: a product changes its formula, a significant new study on a key ingredient is published, a safety concern is raised by a regulatory body, or a reader submits a credible correction.
Each review displays its publication date and most recent update date. When material changes are made, we note what changed and why at the top of the review.
If you spot something that needs updating, use our contact form and select "Factual correction or update." We investigate every submission.
See the methodology in action
Browse our full library of reviews, each scored against the framework described above.