Editorial standards

How we evaluate the evidence.

suppdoc exists because supplement information online is dominated by hype and affiliate spam. These are the standards that make us different, and that you can hold us to.

Our evidence grades

Very strong evidence
Multiple high-quality randomised controlled trials and/or meta-analyses converge on a clear effect (e.g. creatine for strength, omega-3 for triglycerides).
Strong evidence
Consistent RCT evidence with some heterogeneity, or strong mechanistic plus observational support (e.g. magnesium for sleep, vitamin D for deficiency).
Moderate evidence
Promising but mixed or early human data, small trials, or strong mechanism awaiting larger confirmation (e.g. several adaptogens, NAD⁺ precursors).

Our principles

We grade the evidence, openly

Every ingredient carries a visible evidence tier, Very strong, Strong, or Moderate, based on the weight and quality of published human research, not marketing claims. When the evidence is thin, we say so.

We cite primary sources

Claims link to the underlying research, meta-analyses, randomised controlled trials, and reputable bodies (PubMed, NIH, the Cochrane reviews, Examine). We prefer human data over mechanism or animal studies, and we note when only the latter exists.

We tell you what NOT to take

An honest platform says when a supplement isn't worth it, when a cheaper option is just as good, and when the right answer is food, sleep, or a doctor, not a pill. We flag redundancy, interactions, and timing issues.

We don't sell our own supplements

suppdoc has no house brand. We earn the same affiliate rate regardless of which product you choose, so a recommendation is never biased toward our own inventory. Affiliate links are disclosed.

We're educational, not medical

Nothing here is medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. We prompt you to involve a qualified clinician for anything that warrants it, pregnancy, medications, medical conditions, or abnormal lab results.

We use AI responsibly

We use AI to help structure and personalise information at scale, but content is written to this methodology, grounded in cited research, and moving under named clinical review. AI accelerates the work; it does not replace the evidence or the reviewer.

We correct mistakes

If we get something wrong, we fix it and date the update. Each evidence page shows when it was last reviewed. Spot an error? Tell us at hello@suppdoc.io.

Clinical review

We are building a board of licensed clinicians, a pharmacist, a registered dietitian, and a physician, to review our evidence content. Reviewers and their credentials are published on our team page, and reviewed pages carry their name and the date of review.

Read the full methodology →Meet the team →