Supplement Explained Score

The five score axes: explicit 1–5 anchors

Method version 2.0. The October 17, 2026 export contains 116 individually assessed product reviews. Each review keeps its own assessment date and label limitations. The score evaluates the reviewed formula in its stated context; it is not a product-health ranking or a promise of benefit.

Label clarity measures inspectable information. Research relevance measures how closely relevant human findings match the ingredient, dose, formula and use. Safety and cautions measures suitability constraints and routine complexity; a high score cannot establish that a product is safe for you. Testing documentation grades the scope of verifiable documentation, not an untested assertion that low-scoring products are contaminated. Value for money considers practical use and matched price evidence.

How to read the total

The displayed total is out of 100. Each of five criteria receives 1 to 5 points; we add those points and multiply the sum by four. For example, 21 out of 25 becomes 84 out of 100. The possible displayed totals run from 20 to 100 in four-point steps. This changes the presentation, not the criteria, their equal weighting or the existing assessments. It is an editorial judgment, not a statistically validated scale, customer-star average, effectiveness percentage or medical recommendation. Small differences are not proof of a measurable health benefit. Read the five reasons and compare products serving the same purpose.

How research becomes a score

1. Identify the reviewed variant and inspect published label/retailer information, keeping formula and pack differences explicit.
2. Check official clinical summaries, human studies and current reviews relevant to the intended use. An ingredient study does not prove an entire blend works.
3. Assess dose, medication context, source restrictions, nutrient overlap and practical use.
4. Inspect exact independent quality records when available. Brand-wide, ingredient-only, dietary and manufacturing claims receive narrower credit.
5. Use dated USD prices only when the retailer offer and reviewed pack match. Assess format/burden separately and publish a reason for each assigned point.

Missing information and independence

An unverified quality record earns limited documentation credit, not an accusation of failed testing. Missing fresh matched prices normally limit Value for money to 3/5; substantial burden or formula ambiguity can lower it further. Prices and certification claims from different versions are not silently combined. Customer-star snapshots remain separate. Affiliate availability, clicks, commission rate and commercial relationships do not add points.

Review basis and changes

This review used published sources; Supplement Explained did not perform laboratory testing, buy or personally use these products for these assessments. Clinical sources do not endorse our scores. The 2026-10-07 review replaced the previous text-keyword scoring with explicit source-reviewed records and reassessed the 41 previously scored products alongside 53 newly scored products.

Score date and method version appear on every product. When article content changes, its stored score must be reviewed again; unmatched records are withheld instead of generating a new number from keywords. New product pages remain drafts until a documented five-criterion score matching the current article is complete. Content-changing updates require reassessment before publication; invalid updates preserve the previous live version. Missing label or testing information lowers the relevant criterion with a specific explanation, rather than being silently filled in. Scores are not assigned from keywords, customer stars or affiliate commissions. Prices remain dated snapshots, and major label/research/certification changes can require reassessment.

What can lower a score

• Unclear active dose or confusing serving-size math.
• Strong front-label claims that outrun the evidence grade.
• No clear testing, COA, NSF, USP, Informed Sport, or equivalent testing documentation when the category makes that important.
• Medication, pregnancy, surgery, lab-test, or chronic-condition risk that is not handled clearly.
• A premium price that is not justified by a clear formula, quality, or routine advantage.

What the score can tell you

We do not currently have a named clinician reviewer. Read the five reasons to see what information was checked, what is uncertain and why points were assigned.

External standards used to check the method

The score is a Supplement Explained editorial framework, not a government or clinical rating. Its claim, safety, and label checks are grounded against the NIH Office of Dietary Supplements fact sheets, the FDA consumer guidance for dietary supplements, and the FTC Health Products Compliance Guidance. These sources help define what must be verified; they do not endorse our scores or the products we analyze.

Is the Supplement Explained Score a medical recommendation?

No. It is an editorial decision-support score. It cannot account for your diagnosis, medications, pregnancy status, kidney or liver function, surgery plans, lab results, or treatment goals.

Does a higher score mean the product is guaranteed to work?

No. A higher total means a stronger assessment under these five criteria, not a guaranteed health benefit. The right choice still depends on the ingredient, amount, purpose and your circumstances.

Can a product with no third-party testing still score well?

Sometimes, but missing testing should lower quality-proof confidence in categories where contamination, potency, sport eligibility, or purity are especially important.