How we review
Our scoring methodology
Every score on this site is locked before we look at a single affiliate program. Unscored providers never show numbers. Honest rankings are the product.
StudyBackedHealth — Product & Provider Scoring Rubric
The rule: Score every product fully before looking up its affiliate program or commission rate. The score is final once written. Attach links afterward.
Final score = weighted average, shown as X.X / 10.
1. Clinical Evidence — 30%
What the published research says about the product or the medications/ingredients it provides.
| Score | Standard |
|---|---|
| 9–10 | Multiple peer-reviewed RCTs directly support efficacy claims; effect sizes clearly reported |
| 7–8 | Solid trial evidence, some gaps (short duration, narrow populations) |
| 5–6 | Limited or mixed studies; relies partly on extrapolation |
| 3–4 | Mostly observational data or studies on different doses/forms than what’s sold |
| 0–2 | No credible evidence, or evidence contradicts marketing claims |
Checklist:
- Found the actual studies (PubMed), not just the company’s summary of them
- Checked whether studied dose/form matches what’s actually sold
- Noted who funded the key studies
- For GLP-1 providers: brand-name vs. compounded sourcing documented
2. Consumer Sentiment — 25%
Aggregated from Reddit, Trustpilot, BBB, app stores. Minimum 100 reviews across 2+ platforms before scoring.
| Score | Standard |
|---|---|
| 9–10 | Consistently positive across platforms; complaints are minor and acknowledged by company |
| 7–8 | Mostly positive; recurring but non-serious complaints (shipping, app bugs) |
| 5–6 | Mixed; recurring complaints about core service (billing, access to clinicians) |
| 3–4 | Frequent serious complaints: surprise charges, cancellation traps, ghosting |
| 0–2 | Pattern of harm reports, fake-review evidence, or regulatory action |
Checklist:
- Read negative reviews first
- Separated complaints about the medication (side effects) from the company
- Checked BBB complaint resolution rate
- Searched “[brand] + scam / lawsuit / refund” on Reddit
3. True Cost & Transparency — 20%
| Score | Standard |
|---|---|
| 9–10 | All-in monthly price clear before signup; no step-up pricing; easy cancellation |
| 7–8 | Pricing clear but extras (labs, shipping) add up; cancellation straightforward |
| 5–6 | Intro pricing that steps up after month 1; cancellation requires contact |
| 3–4 | Pricing hidden until after intake quiz; auto-renewal traps |
| 0–2 | Bait pricing, undisclosed fees, documented cancellation obstruction |
Checklist:
- Calculated real cost over 6 months, not month 1
- Documented what’s NOT included (medication itself? labs? visits?)
- Tested how many clicks to find the cancellation policy
4. Care Quality & Safety — 15%
| Score | Standard |
|---|---|
| 9–10 | Board-certified prescribers, real intake screening, ongoing monitoring, easy clinician access |
| 7–8 | Licensed clinicians, decent screening, slower follow-up |
| 5–6 | Minimal screening; asynchronous-only; prescriber credentials vague |
| 3–4 | Rubber-stamp intake; no follow-up care |
| 0–2 | Prescribes without meaningful evaluation; safety red flags |
For non-prescription products: third-party testing, manufacturing standards (cGMP), ingredient disclosure.
5. Support & Experience — 10%
Customer service responsiveness, app/site usability (weight this for older users: phone support available? readable interface?), coaching or education included.
Disqualifiers (automatic “Not Recommended” regardless of score)
- Sells prescription drugs without any clinician involvement
- Health claims that contradict FDA position
- Documented fake reviews or undisclosed paid rankings
- Active regulatory enforcement for patient harm
After scoring
- Lock the score.
- THEN check affiliate program availability and terms.
- If your #1 has no program: publish it as #1 anyway. State plainly: “We earn nothing from this recommendation.”
- Log the date and re-score quarterly.
How we source community reports
Our articles cite patterns from patient communities — "65 of 184 comments reported minimal or no side effects." Here is exactly how those numbers are made, and the rules we follow.
The method
- We read high-engagement threads in GLP-1 patient communities (primarily Reddit), analyze the loaded comments, and count how many match each recurring theme.
- Every count is stored in a dated internal dataset with the thread list and method, and each article's sources section links the threads we analyzed — so you can open them and check our characterization yourself.
- We re-collect quarterly. Sample sizes and collection dates are stated wherever a number appears.
Why we paraphrase — and never name users
- Privacy: people in patient communities share weights, medical histories, and personal struggles under pseudonyms, to peers. Reprinting that with a username on a commercial site re-amplifies it to an audience they never chose. We summarize patterns instead.
- Advertising law: this site earns affiliate commissions. An individual's dramatic success story quoted next to an affiliate link can function as an atypical-results testimonial — something weight-loss advertising rules rightly restrict. Aggregated, hedged patterns keep our community reporting analysis, not endorsement.
- Discipline: quotes invite cherry-picking; counts don't. If 65 of 184 comments say the opposite of the dramatic story, we have to report that.
The limits, stated plainly
- Communities self-select: success stories and engaged patients are over-represented; quiet quitters are invisible.
- Theme counts are directional, not a survey — they tell you what a community talks about, not population rates. For rates, we cite the FDA labels and trials.
- Community patterns never override clinical evidence in our scoring — they inform the consumer-sentiment portion of the rubric above.