How We Review Evidence

Supplement topics often sit in a messy middle ground: some have strong evidence for narrow use cases, some have mixed evidence, and some are marketed far more confidently than they deserve. Our job is to translate that honestly.

Source priority

1. Government and institutional sources such as NIH ODS, NCCIH, MedlinePlus, FDA, and FTC where relevant
2. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses
3. Stronger randomized trials and high-quality review articles
4. Community discussions only for anecdotal themes, user-language, and practical friction points

How we describe evidence

Instead of pretending every supplement question has a clean yes-or-no answer, we use plainer evidence framing such as stronger evidence, moderate evidence, mixed evidence, limited evidence, or mostly anecdotal concern.

What we do with anecdotal reports

Public discussions can help surface confusion, recurring complaints, and real-world wording. They do not replace clinical evidence. When we summarize recurring public themes, we label them as anecdotal and keep them below the main evidence summary.

Why caution matters here

Supplements can affect medicines, lab interpretation, tolerability, and care decisions. That is why our pages are built to show limits, not just possibilities.