Review & fact-checking guidelines

SupplementGet exists to give readers honest, balanced reporting that reflects the best available evidence. The supplement category moves quickly and marketing often outpaces science. These guidelines describe how we write, verify, and correct our content.

Editorial commitment

Accuracy is more important than hype. We write for readers - not for brands. Every article should explain benefits, limits, risks, and unanswered questions without exaggeration. We acknowledge that individuals respond differently to supplements and that evidence ranges from strong trials to weak or preliminary data.

How we research

We begin with the product label, ingredient list, and publicly stated claims. We then triangulate with peer-reviewed literature, clinical guidance, and reputable government or clinical references (for example PubMed-indexed studies, systematic reviews, NIH Office of Dietary Supplements, NCCIH where applicable, and MedlinePlus or FDA resources when safety is discussed).

When we compare doses with research, we call out under-dosed formulas and unusually high doses that could raise safety concerns. We also consider manufacturer transparency, GMP statements, and third-party testing claims when they materially affect trust.

Multi-step review

1. Evidence collection – claims are mapped to sources and graded for strength (human trials versus animal or mechanistic work).
2. Clinical and safety pass – interactions, contraindications, vulnerable groups, and labeling updates are checked against authoritative safety references.
3. Medical review (where applicable) – clinically oriented articles are reviewed by a qualified reviewer identified in the byline when present.
4. Continuous updates – reformulations, recalls, or new studies trigger revisions with a visible updated date when practical.

Fact-checking standards

Marketing language, testimonials, and press releases are not treated as verified facts. We strive to separate opinion from evidence and to label uncertainty clearly. Where international reference frameworks exist (for example transparency norms such as HONcode-style disclosure of purpose and authorship), we align with those expectations in spirit.

Transparency and disclosure

Affiliate relationships may exist where noted on relevant pages. They do not change our conclusions: poor value or safety concerns are stated plainly. Free samples, when accepted, are disclosed and never guarantee a favorable outcome.

Corrections

We investigate credible reader feedback. Confirmed errors are corrected with a dated note when the change is material.

Contact

Questions about methodology or a specific fact-check: [email protected]. Privacy-related research requests: [email protected].

Effective date: May 14, 2026