Supplement Brief is edited by a small science communications editorial team focused on evidence-aware supplement comparisons. We write for readers who already know what they are looking for and need a clearer answer on what is worth buying, what is overhyped, and where the evidence stops.
Why Supplement Brief exists
We kept seeing the same pattern: supplements promoted with certainty, while the underlying studies were small, conflicted, or never replicated. Supplement Brief was started in 2026 to close that gap.
Most buying guides read like affiliate copy with a thin evidence veneer. Most clinical evidence stays locked in journals that readers never see. The space between those two is where readers get misled — by a single small trial stretched into a broad claim, by a "natural" alternative framed as a prescription replacement, or by a ranking that looks editorial but is paid. Supplement Brief sits in that space: we read the trials, we write what they actually measured, and we name the funding source when the trial is industry-backed. The goal is not to sell supplements. The goal is to make the evidence legible enough that the reader can decide for themselves.
How the team works
Every guide follows the same workflow at a high level:
- Identify the clinical question the reader is actually asking.
- Review the human evidence — prioritising meta-analyses and randomised trials, naming lower-tier evidence when that is all there is.
- Assess limitations: population, dose, duration, primary vs exploratory endpoints, funding source.
- Write practical guidance that separates what the evidence supports from what marketing claims.
- Disclose commercial relationships and affiliate links in the article body, not only in the references.
The full methodology — evidence hierarchy, industry-funded trial flagging, medical review policy, and where to find independent lab data — is on the methodology page.
We do not
- invent expert reviewers or paid authority badges
- hide affiliate relationships or accept payment for placement
- present animal or preclinical research as human evidence
- recommend a product because the brand pays us
- overstate certainty when the evidence is limited, small, or industry-funded
Medical reviewers
Supplement Brief’s science editors write and fact-check guides against cited sources. Selected articles with significant medical context also receive independent review from external clinicians. Those reviewers are named in the article byline and listed on the methodology page.
Our first external medical reviewer is Natallia Kalistratava, MD — a general practice physician licensed in the Republic of Belarus. See her profile for review scope, credentials, and limitations.
Good evidence doesn’t make decisions for people. It helps people make better decisions.