Supplement Brief publishes independent buying guides across supplement categories, including GLP-1 companion nutrition, hair and skin care, sexual health, metabolic health, sleep and mental-health support, and longevity. 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
- Whether a ranking is paid placement or genuinely editorial
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. They are not discussed 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- We do not publish miracle claims, before/after promises, or fake medical review badges
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. We do not 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 new trial evidence, safety information, or clinical review scope changes. 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 is set out on the methodology page: PMID-verified citations, counter-evidence reporting, population-gap and sex-specific callouts, reader-checkpoint safety callouts, and the evidence hierarchy we apply. 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.