Editorial Policy

Purpose

This policy explains how SuppScope researches, writes, reviews, updates and corrects dietary-supplement content.

Our goal is to provide useful and proportionate conclusions without exaggerating benefits, minimising risks or disguising commercial interests.

Evidence hierarchy

We generally give the greatest weight to systematic reviews and meta-analyses of relevant human studies, randomised controlled trials, controlled observational research, uncontrolled human studies, animal studies, laboratory research, traditional use, and manufacturer claims—in that order.

A lower evidence category may still be useful, but it is labelled clearly and is not presented as proof of a human health benefit.

What researchers actually tested

Where relevant, articles identify the participant population, sample size, dose, formulation, duration, comparator, outcomes, findings, limitations and declared funding or conflicts.

We do not treat an ingredient name alone as proof that every product matches the studied preparation.

Source selection

We prefer peer-reviewed primary research, systematic reviews, official regulator publications, recognised quality standards, public trial records and complete batch-linked product documents.

We avoid relying on anonymous summaries, copied marketing claims, unverifiable certificates or low-quality secondary content when stronger sources are available.

Human evidence and other evidence

Human outcomes are reported separately from animal, laboratory and mechanistic findings. Mechanistic plausibility is not described as a proven benefit. Traditional use is presented as historical or cultural context, not modern clinical proof.

Claim language

SuppScope uses proportionate wording such as “one trial reported,” “preliminary evidence suggests,” “the evidence remains limited,” “this has not been established in humans,” and “the result applies to the tested preparation.”

We avoid unsupported claims such as cure, guaranteed, clinically proven, completely safe, FDA approved, EU approved, works for everyone, or superior without defined and verified criteria.

Product and batch applicability

A result from one ingredient, formulation or batch is not automatically applied to another.

When discussing a commercial product, we distinguish manufacturer claims, available documentation, independent evidence, batch-specific test results, unverified information and SuppScope interpretation.

Commercial independence

Affiliated and unaffiliated products are assessed using the same published standards. Commercial relationships do not purchase favourable conclusions, evidence ratings or editorial placement.

Relevant relationships are disclosed clearly and close to the content where practical.

Authors, review and dates

Articles identify the editorial author or reviewing organisation and display a reviewed date. A reviewed date means the article was checked against the sources available at that time; it does not guarantee that no later evidence or regulatory change exists.

Use of AI

AI tools may assist with organisation, drafting support, formatting or search preparation. AI output is not accepted as a scientific source.

Study details, regulatory statements, citations and material claims must be checked against reliable sources before publication. AI must not invent references, study details, product test results, legal status or author credentials.

Updates and corrections

Content may be updated when important evidence appears, official guidance changes, a source is corrected or retracted, product context changes, a material error is found or a disclosure needs clarification.

Material corrections follow the Corrections Policy.