Editorial Standards
This page sets out how Supplete researches, writes, grades and corrects its content. Every trust claim we make is meant to be checkable — this is where you can check it.
Sourcing hierarchy
For every topic we identify the relevant scientific literature and authoritative sources, and we weight them by the strength of their design. In descending order of weight:
Marketing material and industry-funded claims are identified as such when we cite them, and are never treated as neutral evidence.
Verification
Claims are checked against the full text of studies, not their abstracts. Abstracts routinely overstate or simplify findings; the population studied, the dose used, the duration, and the primary endpoint often change what a result actually means. We read those details before a finding is cited, and we report them where they matter to the reader.
Where a claim rests on weaker categories of evidence — laboratory work, animal models or observational association — we say so in the text rather than presenting it as settled.
How we grade evidence
Each guide carries an evidence-strength label so you can see, at a glance, how much confidence the research supports. This is one of the few things almost no competitor documents openly:
- Strong — consistent findings from multiple well-conducted randomised trials, meta-analyses or systematic reviews, generally reflected in official guidance.
- Moderate — meaningful supporting evidence with real limitations: smaller trials, mixed results, or unresolved patient-relevant outcomes.
- Limited / Emerging — a plausible mechanism and early or small human studies, but not enough evidence to draw firm conclusions.
A claim is rated down when the trials are small or few, when results are inconsistent, when the studied population or dose differs from real-world use, or when the outcome measured isn't the one that matters to a person taking the supplement. We distinguish clinical evidence in humans from laboratory, animal and observational research throughout.
How we handle conflicting evidence
When studies disagree, the stronger design wins: a well-conducted meta-analysis or randomised trial outweighs an observational signal. But we don't resolve disagreements silently. Where the evidence is genuinely split, we show the reader the disagreement and explain why we weight it the way we do. When the honest answer is "this doesn't work" or "we can't tell yet," we say so plainly.
Commercial independence
Supplete's independence is structural, not just a promise:
- We sell no products and run no shop.
- Our editorial conclusions are never for sale: no brand can pay to be included, excluded, rated, ranked, re-ranked or reviewed favourably.
- We publish no sponsored content, paid placements or guest posts inside our guides.
- Advertising and affiliate links, where present, are chosen to be neutral toward any specific supplement brand — for example general retailers or resellers (such as iHerb) rather than individual supplement makers buying favourable coverage.
- Any advertising or affiliate income is independent of our recommendations and never influences a conclusion, rating or ranking. Affiliate links are disclosed where they appear.
Advertising or affiliate income, where it exists, helps fund the work but never shapes it. If our commercial model changes materially, this policy and the relevant disclosures are updated before any such content goes live. An out-of-date independence claim is worse than none.
AI & automation
We use structured research and editorial technology to process the scientific literature efficiently — for example, to gather candidate sources and organise evidence. This tooling does not decide what is true and does not have the final word on what is published.
Editorial standards, and a named human editor, determine what appears on the site. Every factual claim, dosage figure and safety statement is verified against primary sources before publication, and the Editor-in-Chief is accountable for the result. We would rather describe this workflow openly than pretend a process that is now common across publishing doesn't exist.
Translation
Supplete publishes in multiple languages. Translations are produced through a structured process with editorial oversight and are held to the same standards as the English source: the same claims, the same citations, the same evidence grades and the same dates. The Editor-in-Chief remains accountable for every language edition. If you spot a translation error, please report it using the address below.
Dates & freshness
Every article carries a visible publication date and a last-updated date, and those dates match
the datePublished and dateModified values in the page's structured
data. We change the last-updated date only when the content materially changes — not to
manufacture the appearance of freshness. A cosmetic edit does not reset the clock.
Corrections & updates
If you find an error — a wrong figure, an outdated citation, a claim that no longer reflects the evidence — please tell us at editorial@supplete.eu. We aim to acknowledge reports within 2–3 working days, correct confirmed errors promptly, and record substantive corrections below.
Corrections log
Medical disclaimer
Supplete is an educational publication, not a medical service. Nothing on this site is medical advice, diagnosis or treatment, and it should not delay or replace care from a qualified clinician. Supplement decisions — particularly during pregnancy or breastfeeding, in children, alongside prescription medication, or with an existing medical condition — should be made with a healthcare professional. We are not doctors, pharmacists or dietitians and do not present ourselves as such.