About

Who runs SupplementScore, how a score is calculated, and how the site is paid for.

Last reviewed 21 October 2026 · SupplementScore team · CC-BY 4.0

About

SupplementScore is a free, independent public reference and takes no industry funding. It grades dietary supplements against published clinical trials. Every score traces back to peer-reviewed research. The database currently scores 734 supplements, cites 3,222 studies, and draws on 61 sources. Industry funding is $0.

Why we exist

The right supplement can change someone’s sleep, joint pain, energy, or migraines. The wrong one can drain a wallet, interact with a prescription, or harm an organ. Honest information is hard to find. The supplement industry generates over $50 billion a year in the US alone, and most of what you read online is written by someone trying to sell you something.

We built SupplementScore to close that gap. The long-term goal is to use clinical evidence, and eventually blood work and DNA, to give each person precise supplement guidance. We do not sell supplements. We do not accept sponsorships. We do not run affiliate links. The reference is free, and it stays free.

Three rules sit under every page. Every score is traceable to its source studies. There is zero industry funding and zero affiliate deals with brands we score. Scores change when the evidence changes.

Who writes and reviews our content

This is a small, independent, volunteer-run project. Articles, supplement entries, and comparisons are published under the name SupplementScore team. We do not invent personas or credentials.

Each topic starts from the primary literature (PubMed, the Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov) and regulator documents (FDA, EFSA, EMA, NIH Office of Dietary Supplements, Health Canada). Software, including language models, helps draft and summarise. In citation audits, cited PubMed IDs are checked against the PubMed record. A citation that does not support its sentence is corrected or removed, and the claim is softened to match the evidence. Every article lists its sources and, where we know it, who funded each study.

No named, licensed clinician reviews pages before publication. No page carries a “medically reviewed” label, and nothing here is individual medical advice. A physician, pharmacist, or dietitian who wants to review content under their own name can get in touch.

The “Updated” date on an article is the last time its content was substantively revised. Errors reported through Flag an error are corrected, and the reviewed date is updated. We do not pay for corrections and we do not hide the change.

What we don’t claim

This is an educational reference, not medical advice and not a medical device. We summarise evidence and publish tier calls. Dosing, diagnosis, and treatment belong to a clinician who knows your history.

We do not diagnose conditions or recommend a supplement as treatment for a diagnosed condition. Doses on the site are population-level ranges from clinical trials, not a personal prescription. We do not replace a pharmacist or physician reviewing supplement–medication interactions. We do not endorse specific brands, and we do not claim that any supplement prevents, treats, or cures a disease.

Scores reflect group-level clinical data. Individual responses vary by genetics, diet, health status, medications, and existing conditions. Product quality varies between brands. We do not test, certify, or endorse specific products. Talk to a qualified clinician before starting, stopping, or changing a supplement, especially if you are pregnant, nursing, or taking medication. In an emergency, contact local emergency services.

Roadmap

Four stages toward more personal recommendations.

Comprehensive database — active. 734 supplements scored on six clinical dimensions, from systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and human trials across 61 sources. Updated continuously.
Personalized recommendations — in progress. A profile engine that builds a plan from age, sex, goals, conditions, and medications: what to take, what to avoid, dosing, timing, and interactions.
Blood work and lab integration — coming soon. Upload a blood panel or urine test. Results are compared with optimal ranges to point at deficiencies.
DNA-based personalization — planned. Use MTHFR, VDR, CYP, and APOE variants to adjust for how you absorb, metabolise, and respond to nutrients.

Contact

Corrections, questions, and review offers go to editorial@supplementscore.org. For a correction, name the page, the sentence, and a public source: a PubMed record, a regulator page, or a certifier list. There is no phone line and no published mailing address. The form below is for people who want to help maintain the database. It is not a mailing list and it does not buy a ranking.

Flag an error

On an article or supplement card, use Flag inaccuracy. The form asks for the claim you think is wrong, what it should say, and a citation URL (PubMed, a DOI, a regulator dossier, or a peer-reviewed paper).

The citation is required so we can act on the report. Every submission with a citation is triaged. Reports that touch Tier 4 safety or a drug interaction are escalated to same-day review.

Help build the database

Clinicians, researchers, developers, and writers make the data better. Corrections, new evidence, and partnership offers are welcome. We reply within two business days. No newsletters.

Methodology

Six scores, each from 1 to 5, roll into one number from 0 to 100. Efficacy is weighted 7, safety 4, research depth 3, and onset, cost, and drug-interaction risk 2 each. The highest possible total is 100. Efficacy and safety count the most. The formula is calcScore in app.js and is open to inspect. The headline score does not set the tier by itself. Citation and safety rules below still have to be met.

The four evidence tiers

Every supplement is placed in one tier. The tier is the headline call: how confident the evidence is, and what the risk profile looks like.

Tier	What it means	What moves a supplement here
Tier 1	Proven effective. Multiple large RCTs and meta-analyses with consistent, replicated results across independent research groups.	At least one systematic review or meta-analysis showing a meaningful effect, plus at least one independently funded confirmatory RCT. Industry-only evidence cannot drive a Tier 1 call.
Tier 2	Promising. Clinical trials, but limited to specific populations, conditions, or doses. Real potential, waiting on larger confirmatory studies.	At least two RCTs in a defined population with a consistent direction of effect, but a small total N or no meta-analysis yet.
Tier 3	Unproven. Limited or conflicting human data. Marketing claims often outrun the research. Many popular supplements live here.	Mechanistic plausibility, animal data, or a single small RCT. Shown so readers can see what the evidence does and does not say.
Tier 4	Risky / avoid. Documented harm, including organ damage, severe drug interactions, or death. A regulator has warned. Do not use.	An FDA warning letter or recall, an EMA or EFSA negative opinion, multiple peer-reviewed case reports of serious adverse events, or a ban in a major jurisdiction.

The six sub-scores

Each card shows six 1–5 sub-scores so the headline is not a black box.

Field	What 1 means	What 5 means
Efficacy	Insufficient evidence of benefit	Conclusive — meta-analytic evidence with a consistent direction
Safety	Documented serious harm at typical doses	No adverse signals across large population studies
Research depth	Fewer than 3 published trials	More than 20 trials, including meta-analyses
Onset	8 or more weeks before a noticeable effect	Immediate, or within hours
Cost / value	High cost for a marginal benefit	A meaningful effect for a low cost
Drug-interaction risk	Severe interactions documented	None known

How tiers move

A supplement moves only when the score band and the gates for the new tier are true at the same time. A high score alone is not a promotion. A low score alone is not a demotion from Tier 1.

Score band. Tier 1 is 72–100, Tier 2 is 60–71, Tier 3 is 40–59, Tier 4 is below 40.
Citation gate, Tier 1 only. At least one pivotal PubMed-indexed study with a public or nonprofit funder.
Safety floor, Tier 1 and Tier 2. No active FDA, EFSA, TGA, or Health Canada warning that makes the supplement inappropriate for the general adult population.
Replication, Tier 1 only. The pivotal effect has been seen in at least two independent samples. That can be two analyses that do not share one research group’s data. It does not have to be two separate trials.

Safety moves are the exception. If a major regulator issues a contraindication or a recall, the supplement moves to Tier 4 within one deploy, whatever the efficacy score. A composite of 72 or higher is required for Tier 1 and is not enough on its own. Many entries sit in that band and stay Tier 2 because the citation gate or the replication rule is not met. Tier 4 can also be assigned above a score of 40 when a regulator has warned against the product. In the prior 12 months: 12 net promotions, 4 demotions, and 1 safety-driven move. The public log is score-changes.csv (date, slug, from, to, reason). Rows from before this file was published were not exported. The narrative of those moves is in this section.

Worked example — psyllium husk. The 2024 Zhu meta-analysis (29 randomised trials, 2,769 adults, PMID 38688104) found Plantago / psyllium lowered LDL cholesterol by about 0.35 mmol/L. That paper is a university review, not an NIH trial. An earlier version of this page called it NIH-supported and counted 27 trials. Both details were wrong. Together with the FDA-authorised health claim at 7 grams a day of soluble fibre, and older independent cholesterol trials, the record supports Tier 1. There is one psyllium card. A second soluble-fibre card described the same husk and now redirects here.

Where the evidence comes from

When sources disagree, the stronger evidence type wins. This is the order:

01 Meta-analyses and Cochrane systematic reviews. Pooled effect, risk of bias graded.
02 Regulator dossiers. FDA, EFSA, EMA, NIH ODS, Health Canada.
03 Independently funded randomised trials. Direct evidence in humans.
04 Cohort and observational studies. Useful for safety signals.
05 Mechanistic, animal, or anecdotal reports. Hypothesis only.

Primary sources include PubMed, the Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, NIH Office of Dietary Supplements, NCCIH, EFSA, EMA HMPC, Health Canada NNHPD, openFDA FAERS, FDA MedWatch, WHO monographs, USDA FoodData Central, DrugBank, the USPSTF, and journals including NEJM, Lancet, JAMA, BMJ, AJCN, and JISSN. Appraisal frameworks include GRADE, Cochrane RoB 2, AMSTAR-2, CONSORT, and PRISMA. The registry of 61 sources is sources/registry.json. Browse the bibliography.

Cochrane Systematic reviews
PubMed NLM biomedical index
ISSN Sports nutrition society
USPSTF US prevention task force
EFSA EU food safety
CDC US public health
NIH ODS Dietary supplements office
NCCIH Complementary health
WHO World Health Organization
Examine Supplement research
Nat. Medicines TRC database
EMA / HMPC EU herbal monographs
Australian TGA Therapeutic Goods Admin.
ConsumerLab Product testing
ACSM Sports medicine
AHA Am. Heart Assn.
ACOG OB/GYN college
UpToDate Clinical decision support
Health Canada Natural Health Products
NCI PDQ Cancer supplements
BMJ British Medical Journal
FDA Supplement database
NEJM New England J. Med.
Lancet Intl. medical journal
AJCN Am. J. Clin. Nutrition
NSF Purity certification
ClinicalTrials NIH trial registry
AHRQ US healthcare quality
Ann. Int. Med. Am. Coll. Physicians
Am. Botanical HerbalGram
WADA Anti-doping agency
Harvard Chan Public health
Johns Hopkins Clinical reviews
Stanford Med Translational research
Cleveland Clinic Drug & supplement
Karolinska Medical research
PLOS Medicine Open-access research
Cell Metabolism Metabolism research
Nutr. Reviews Nutrition science
BJSM Br. J. Sports Med.
Eur. Heart J. Cardiology flagship
Diabetologia EASD journal
JBMR Bone & mineral
JAMA Am. Medical Assn.
Mayo Clinic Evidence reviews
NHMRC Australian research council
NICE UK care guidance
Linus Pauling Micronutrient research
MSK Herbs Sloan Kettering
USP Quality verification
ESCOP EU phytotherapy
NASEM DRIs & upper limits
MHRA UK regulator
GRADE Evidence grading
Circulation AHA cardiology
Gut GI & microbiome
Endo. Reviews Hormone science
Diabetes Care ADA clinical journal
AAP Am. Acad. Pediatrics
ASPEN Clinical nutrition
Tufts Friedman Nutrition science

These are not primary sources: manufacturer literature, affiliate review sites, industry trade publications, celebrity product pages, retailer product pages, multilevel-marketing materials, and influencer or podcast claims. They may appear in an article only as evidence of a marketing claim being examined.

How study funding changes a score

Industry-funded supplement trials report effect sizes about 20–30% larger, on average, than independently funded ones, after controlling for design quality. We do not ignore that.

Every cited study is tagged with its funder, a funder type (public, industry, mixed, nonprofit, or none_disclosed), and a competing-interest flag.
When a pooled effect comes from industry-funded trials, the narrative applies about a 25% downward adjustment. The adjustment is written on that supplement.
A Tier 1 call needs at least one public or nonprofit confirmatory study. Industry-only evidence cannot promote a supplement to Tier 1.
Citations flag industry funding in amber and a competing-interest disclosure in red, so a reader can weigh them.

The 25% figure is a discount, not a deletion. Many industry trials are well designed and add real evidence. The number comes from meta-research on funding bias. We will revise it as our own tracking accumulates.

SupplementScore is independent and takes no industry funding. We take no money from manufacturers, distributors, retailers, or affiliate programs, and we do not run advertising. Hosting and tools are paid from reader donations and the operator’s personal funds. Editorial staff disclose equity, consulting, and speaking ties to the supplement industry from the prior three years. Someone with an active industry tie cannot write or second-read an entry where that conflict applies. How the site is paid for, how a brand page is chosen, and how to ask for a correction are in Transparency.

Review cadence

Content	Cadence	Triggers
Tier 4 and safety articles	14 days, or on a regulator alert	PubMed, openFDA FAERS, FDA MedWatch, EFSA alerts
Tier 1 and breakthrough articles	30 days	PubMed and Cochrane
Pediatric supplements	30 days	PubMed, AAP, and NIH ODS pediatric
Tier 2 and Tier 3 supplements	60 days	PubMed, ODS, and EMA
Evergreen guides and myth-busting	90 days	PubMed

An FDA MedWatch or EFSA alert for a supplement we track jumps the queue, whatever the last-reviewed date. Every card and article shows its last-reviewed date.

How interactions are modeled

Three pieces. Pairs are positive synergies, such as vitamin D3 with K2 for bone density, or iron with vitamin C for absorption, each with a 1–5 strength. Cautions are negative pairs: caution (an additive risk worth attention) or avoid (skip the combination). St. John’s wort with an SSRI is avoid because of serotonin syndrome. Ashwagandha with thyroid medication is a caution. Mechanism groups bundle supplements that share a pathway — bleed, serotonin, sedation, stimulant, hepatotoxic, hypoglycemic, hypotensive, thyroid modulator, and others — and flag any two members against each other.

In a profile stack, conflicts show up in three places: a chip on the card, a grouped row that names the mechanism, and a banner at the top of the plan. The profile flags known drug–supplement conflicts from a partial list. No flag does not mean a combination is safe. Discuss supplements and doses with your doctor or pharmacist. A fuller interaction system is still in build as phase 2 of the roadmap.

Glossary

Plain-language definitions for the research terms used on the site.

Study design

RCTRandomized controlled trial

The strongest single-study design. Participants are randomly assigned to receive the intervention (e.g. a supplement) or a control (placebo or standard care). Randomization balances confounders so any difference in outcome is attributable to the intervention.

DBPCDouble-blind, placebo-controlled

An RCT where neither the participant nor the researchers measuring outcomes know who received the active compound. Eliminates placebo and observer bias. The gold standard for supplement evidence.

CrossoverCrossover trial

Each participant receives both the intervention and the control, separated by a washout period. Smaller sample size needed but only works for short-term, fully-reversible effects.

CohortCohort study

Observational. Follows a group of people over time and observes which ones develop an outcome. Can show association, not causation. Confounding (e.g. healthy-user bias) is the main weakness.

Case-controlCase-control study

Observational. Compares people with a condition to people without it, looking backward for differences. Cheap and fast but prone to recall bias.

In vitroIn vitro

Latin for "in glass". Done in cells or test tubes, not in living humans or animals. Hypothesis-generating; rarely translates directly to human effects.

Synthesizing evidence

SRSystematic review

A structured search across all published evidence on a question, using pre-specified inclusion criteria. Reduces cherry-picking. Often paired with a meta-analysis.

Meta-analysisMeta-analysis

Pools the numeric results of multiple RCTs to compute a more precise summary effect. Cochrane reviews are considered the highest-quality form. The site's Tier 1 calls usually rest on a meta-analysis with positive results.

NMANetwork meta-analysis

A meta-analysis that compares 3+ interventions even when not all of them have been directly compared head-to-head. Used to rank treatments (e.g. the 2025 Cheng NMA ranking nutraceuticals against antidepressants).

GRADEGRADE evidence rating

A standardized framework that rates the certainty of evidence as High, Moderate, Low, or Very Low based on study design, consistency, directness, precision, and publication bias.

PRISMAPRISMA reporting standard

The PRISMA checklist standardizes how systematic reviews report their methods, so you can reproduce the search and judge what was excluded.

Effect-size measures

SMDStandardized mean difference

The intervention's effect expressed in standard deviations. SMD 0.2 ≈ small, 0.5 ≈ moderate, 0.8 ≈ large. Lets you compare effect sizes across trials that used different scales.

RRRelative risk

The ratio of an event happening in the treated group vs control. RR 0.7 means 30% lower risk; RR 1.5 means 50% higher risk.

OROdds ratio

Like RR but uses odds (event:no-event) instead of probability. Approximates RR when the event is rare.

HRHazard ratio

Like RR but accounts for time-to-event. Used in survival analysis.

CIConfidence interval (95% CI)

The range within which the "true" effect probably lies. If the 95% CI for an RR crosses 1.0, the result is not statistically significant.

p-valuep-value

The probability that a result this large would happen by chance if the intervention had no real effect. p < 0.05 is the conventional cutoff for "statistically significant" — but it doesn't mean clinically meaningful.

NNTNumber needed to treat

How many people you'd need to treat to prevent one bad outcome. NNT 10 = treat 10 people for one to benefit. The lower the better.

Citation infrastructure

PMIDPubMed identifier

A unique number assigned by the U.S. National Library of Medicine to every paper indexed in PubMed. Lets you look up the exact source — every PMID on this site is a clickable link.

DOIDigital Object Identifier

A persistent ID for any published document. Resolves to the publisher's page (where the full PDF often lives behind a paywall, sometimes not).

PMCPubMed Central

The free full-text repository for biomedical research. ~6 million papers; a subset of PubMed.

COIConflict of interest

Any financial or personal relationship that could bias the research. We tag every cited paper with its disclosed COI status.

Funder typeFunder type

Who paid for the research. Categorised on this site as public (NIH, NHS, etc.), nonprofit (American Heart Association, etc.), industry (a supplement company), mixed, or none_disclosed. Tier 1 calls require at least one public/nonprofit citation.

Pharmacology terms

ULTolerable Upper Intake Level

The highest daily intake of a nutrient unlikely to cause harm in nearly all people. Set by NIH/NAS/EFSA. Above the UL, risk of toxicity rises.

RDARecommended Dietary Allowance

The intake sufficient to meet the requirement of 97–98% of healthy people. Below the RDA, deficiency risk rises.

AIAdequate Intake

Used when an RDA can't be set due to insufficient data. The AI is the average intake assumed to maintain adequacy.

EAREstimated Average Requirement

The intake that meets the requirement of 50% of healthy people in a group. Below the EAR, deficiency is statistically common.

CYP450Cytochrome P450

The liver's main drug-metabolising enzyme system. CYP3A4, CYP2D6, CYP1A2, CYP2C9, CYP2C19 are the most clinically important. Many supplements either induce (speed up) or inhibit (slow down) these — which changes prescription drug levels.

P-gpP-glycoprotein

A pump that ferries drugs out of cells. Some supplements modulate P-gp activity, which changes how much of an oral drug actually gets absorbed and how much gets cleared.

Half-lifeHalf-life

The time it takes for half of a dose to clear from the bloodstream. After 5 half-lives, ~97% is gone. Determines dosing frequency.

AUCArea Under the Curve

Total drug exposure over time. A higher AUC means more drug reached the bloodstream — relevant when evaluating bioavailability or absorption-enhancing pairings (e.g. piperine + curcumin).

CmaxCmax

Peak blood concentration after a dose.

Genetic terms

SNPSingle nucleotide polymorphism

A common one-letter difference in DNA. Some SNPs affect how you metabolise nutrients or drugs.

MTHFRMTHFR variant

The methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase gene. Common variants (C677T, A1298C) reduce conversion of folic acid to its active form. Carriers benefit from supplementing methylfolate (5-MTHF) directly.

APOE4APOE4 carrier

A variant of the apolipoprotein E gene linked to higher Alzheimer's risk. Some supplement effects (e.g. omega-3, B vitamins) differ by APOE status.

Methodology shorthand

Tier 1Tier 1 (Strong Evidence)

Composite score ≥ 72 AND at least one cited PMID with public or nonprofit funding. The "I'm comfortable taking this" tier.

Tier 2Tier 2 (Promising)

Composite score 60–71. Real evidence but limited to specific populations, doses, or outcomes.

Tier 3Tier 3 (Trending)

Popular in wellness culture but weak or inconsistent clinical evidence.

Tier 4Tier 4 (Risky / Avoid)

Documented safety risks (organ damage, drug interactions, deaths). Regulatory warnings issued.

Questions

Short restatements of the rules above.

How is a SupplementScore calculated?

Six scores from 1 to 5 — efficacy, safety, research depth, onset, cost, and drug-interaction risk — are weighted efficacy ×7, safety ×4, research depth ×3, and the other three ×2. The total is out of 100. Tier 1 also requires an independently funded confirmatory trial. Industry-only evidence cannot make that call.

Does SupplementScore take affiliate commissions, ads, or brand payments?

No. There are no affiliate links, no ads, no sponsored rankings, and no payments from a brand to be listed, scored, or left out. Hosting is paid from reader donations and the operator’s personal funds. The full policy is in Transparency.

What sources are used?

Scores use peer-reviewed human studies and regulator documents, including PubMed, the Cochrane Library, NIH Office of Dietary Supplements, FDA, EFSA, EMA, and Health Canada. Manufacturer ads and affiliate review sites are not sources for a score.

How do I contact the team?

Email editorial@supplementscore.org with the page, the sentence, and a public source. The contact form on this page reaches the same team.

Latest data revisions

May 25, 2026Legacy /s/<slug>.html supplement URLs unified under the canonical /supplement.html?slug=… route — internal supplement clicks now skip the redirect hop and render directly into the canonical card. Hero search dropdown layering fixed so results no longer hide behind the filter pills.

May 25, 2026Top-100 supplement↔article evidence audit: 566 new supplement-article relationships surfaced; 85 over-tags corrected (Vitamin D3 over-tags halved, Omega-3 over-tags down 60%, Zinc-prostate caution added). Article visual template unified across 229 article pages — consistent heading hierarchy and wrapper typography site-wide.

May 22, 2026Methodology page absorbed into the About page so the editorial process and the org behind it live in one place. Article-generator dedup tightened — 38 title-level duplicate orphans removed.

May 21, 2026Comparison hub expanded: 17 new head-to-head pages including curcumin formulations, creatine forms, zinc forms, probiotic strains, and the full thiamine family (123 comparisons total).

May 19–21, 202655 new articles published across pediatric supplementation, novel longevity compounds, regulatory safety (EGCG hepatotoxicity, curcumin DILIN cases), and form-vs-form deep dives (NMN vs NR, MK-7 vs MK-4, ferrous sulfate vs bisglycinate).

May 16, 2026Daytime scheduled-task expansion — adds hourly content checks and triggers out-of-cycle reviews on FDA MedWatch / EFSA alerts within hours instead of days.

May 13, 2026Medications hub launched at /m/ — five drug pages at first (amlodipine, gabapentin, semaglutide, sertraline, tramadol), now expanded to eleven. Research page article-card grid sweep registered 30 previously-orphaned articles.

May 8–13, 2026Article catalog grew from 254 to 283 cards on the Research page; placeholder updated from "Search 241 articles…" to "Search 284 articles…".

May 2, 2026Largest single batch of the year — 238 articles published in one day, covering the long-tail of population-specific guidance (pediatrics, pregnancy, athletes, seniors).

Apr 29, 2026Dark mode retired site-wide. All pages now force light theme — cleaner reading on long-form content and one fewer styling layer to maintain.

Apr 16, 2026Added 50 new supplements (733 total) spanning mitochondrial compounds, vitamin E isomers, HMO prebiotics, omega-3 plant oils, and chelated mineral forms. 12 new sources added (55 total).

Apr 14, 2026Added ClinicalTrials.gov, AHRQ, Annals of Internal Medicine, American Botanical Council, and WADA as primary sources.

Apr 10, 2026Updated Omega-3 description — corrected VITAL trial data attribution. Vitamin K2 drug-interaction score upgraded to "significant" (warfarin).

Transparency

This section says, in one place, what we do not sell, how a score is chosen, how a brand gets listed, who pays for the site, and how to correct a mistake. Last reviewed 21 October 2026. No named reviewer. How the pages are written is on How SupplementScore is made.

No affiliate income, ads, or sponsorships

We do not put affiliate links on any page. A link to a study, a regulator, or a certifier is not a paid referral.
We do not sell advertising, sponsored rankings, or paid placements.
We do not take payment from a supplement brand to be listed, scored, or left out.
We do not sell supplements, and we do not link to a store checkout.

If you find a link that pays us when someone clicks or buys, that is a mistake. Use the corrections path.

How scores are chosen

Each supplement card is a summary of published human evidence, not a product review. Six numbers — efficacy, safety, research depth, and the other published factors — combine into a score. The tier label is not a marketing grade. A high score still needs the citation and safety rules in the methodology. Industry-funded trials are not treated as if they were independent.

We do not raise a score because a brand asked, and we do not lower one because a brand did not. The editorial process uses PubMed, regulator documents, and guidelines. Manufacturer ads, affiliate review sites, and influencer claims are not sources for a score.

How brand pages are chosen

A brand page exists only when at least one named product appeared on a public list we could open: USP Verified, NSF Certified for Sport, Informed-Sport, Informed-Choice, or a Health Canada natural health product licence. The check date on those pages is 15 October 2026.

The seal or licence applies to the named product, not to every bottle the brand sells.
A Health Canada NPN means that product is licensed for sale in Canada. It is not a purity seal.
ConsumerLab pass or fail results are omitted. They sit behind a subscription and were not on a public page we could recheck.
Being listed is not a score, a recommendation to buy, or a claim that the product treats a disease.

The directory is verified brands. The source for each row is the public certifier page linked from that product.

Funding

Hosting and tools are paid from individual reader donations and the operator’s personal funds. We do not accept money from manufacturers, retailers, distributors, or affiliate networks. There is no paywall on the reference itself.

The volunteer form in the footer, and the form in Help build the database, send an email address to Formspree so we can reply. That form is not a mailing list for sponsors, and submitting it does not buy a ranking. How a study’s funder changes a score is in How study funding changes a score.

Corrections

No named clinician reviews pages before they go up. Pages say so. Software, including language models, helps draft summaries. Cited PubMed IDs are checked against the PubMed record. A citation that does not support the sentence is removed, or the sentence is changed.

If a dose, a study, a certification, or a safety line is wrong, write from Flag an error or email editorial@supplementscore.org. Tell us the page, the sentence, and a public source. We correct the page and update its reviewed date. We do not pay for corrections and we do not hide the change.

What this site does and does not track

Plausible, a cookieless counter, records that a page was opened. It is not an ad network and it does not follow you across other websites.
Formspree receives the volunteer form and inaccuracy reports.
GitHub Pages keeps ordinary server logs.
Pages use the typeface already on your device. We do not send a font request to Google.
There are no advertising cookies, no remarketing pixels, and no affiliate tracking parameters.

Details are in the privacy policy.

Sources for this page

Methodology — how a score is built.
How study funding changes a score, and who writes the pages.
Verified brands — product-level certification listings.
Privacy policy.
Terms — the site does not endorse a brand or a retailer.