Supplement Brief publishes independent buying guides for people comparing supplements, GLP-1 companion nutrition, hair growth products, and longevity ingredients. Our editorial process is designed to make evidence, limitations, and commercial context visible before a purchase decision.
What we check
- Human evidence strength and whether claims match the cited research
- Realistic use cases, safety limits, and medication context
- Product form, dose, price, and whether the comparison is useful
- Affiliate relationships and whether rankings are paid
Scope
Supplement Brief covers dietary supplements, nutritional interventions, and evidence relevant to supplement purchasing decisions. Medical conditions are discussed only where they provide necessary context for understanding a supplement’s potential role, limitations, or safety — not as a target for treatment. When a guide touches a diagnosed condition, the supplement evidence is the focus and the medical context is referred back to the reader’s clinician.
What we do not do
- We do not sell paid rankings or accept payment for placement
- We do not present supplements as replacements for prescription medication
- We do not publish miracle claims, before/after promises, or fake medical review badges
How editorial and affiliate stay separate
- Editorial conclusions are written before affiliate links are added
- Affiliate partners do not see articles before publication
- Affiliate commission rates do not influence which products we cover or how we rank them
Where our editorial voice stops
Supplement Brief is an editorial publication, not a medical practice. Our voice covers supplements, ingredient evidence, comparison criteria, and the framing readers need to make their own informed decisions. Our voice does not extend to disease treatment protocols, prescription drug management, psychiatric medication switching, or individualized clinical recommendations.
When a topic requires direct guidance on prescription drugs, psychiatric medication adjustments, or treatment of a diagnosed condition, we either hold the article until a credentialed medical reviewer has signed off, or we limit publication to the supplement-specific evidence.
In those cases we explain where the supplement evidence ends, point readers to the relevant medical context, and encourage treatment decisions to be made with a qualified clinician.
Our role is to make evidence easier to understand — not to replace individualized medical care. We reason in public, surface the evidence, and let readers draw their own conclusions.
If an article covers prescription drug interactions or psychiatric medication effects, it carries a Medical Reviewerbyline. Articles without that byline stay within the supplement-comparison scope and explicitly refer medical questions back to the reader’s clinician.
Named medical reviewers, credentials, review scope, and limitations are listed on the methodology page and on each reviewer’s profile (for example, Natallia Kalistratava, MD).
Updates and corrections
Guides are updated when evidence, pricing, product availability, or disclosure requirements change. Major updates are reflected in the guide date shown on each article page. A public log of citation fixes and material corrections is maintained on the corrections page.
Evidence transparency
The detailed method — PMID-verified citations, counter-evidence reporting, population-gap and sex-specific callouts, reader-checkpoint safety callouts, and the evidence hierarchy we apply — is set out on the methodology page. That page also states what we explicitly do not do (we run no chemical assays, accept no paid placement, and publish no miracle claims) and where to find independent laboratory data when you need it.