Last updated: 5 November 2026
Purpose and scope
Evidence for Supplements explains what human research can tell us about specific supplement claims, including the size of any benefit, uncertainty and relevant safety considerations. Reviews bring a focused question together; weekly Evidence Updates examine selected newly published research.
Our articles are targeted editorial reviews unless explicitly described as systematic reviews. A weekly update is a selection of research, not an exhaustive surveillance service.
Sources and interpretation
Our editorial standard is to prioritise human randomised trials and relevant systematic reviews while examining the quality of the underlying methods. Articles should link to primary publications where available, distinguish trial results from interpretation, and explain the formulation, dose, population, comparator, duration and outcomes relevant to the claim.
Discuss prespecified primary outcomes, effect sizes, uncertainty, missing data and limitations. Identify secondary or exploratory findings. Biomarker changes and animal or laboratory findings should not be presented as proof of clinical benefit. Statistical significance alone does not establish a useful benefit.
Evidence grades and safety
Our Evidence Grading page explains the editorial letter grades. Confidence in an answer is separate from whether that answer supports benefit. These grades are not regulatory approvals or formal GRADE assessments. Include relevant cautions and medicine interactions without implying individual suitability.
Authorship, tools and review
Bylines and review credits should reflect the work actually completed. Do not imply independent expert review or pharmacist sign-off unless it occurred. Where automated tools assist research or drafting, the publishing editor remains responsible for checking sources, numerical claims, links and the final interpretation. Automated output is not evidence.
Commercial transparency
Commercial relationships and supplied products should be disclosed beside the relevant content. Study funding and author conflicts should be considered separately from the publication’s own arrangements. Payment, brand reputation or affiliate commission should not determine an evidence verdict. See the Affiliate Disclosure and each article’s disclosure for applicable arrangements.
Dates, updates and accountability
Display publication and substantive review dates. Explain changes that materially affect a conclusion. A late weekly edition should identify its research window and actual publication date rather than imply it was published on time. Report potential errors through the Contact page; the Corrections Policy explains how they are handled.
Medical Disclaimer · Editorial Policy · Corrections Policy · Contact