Score breakdown · Provider-Selection Integrity rubric
| Criterion | Awarded | Max | Rationale |
|---|---|---|---|
| Payment & affiliate disclosure | 21 | 25 | Disclosure inline on ranking pages, identifies commercial partners by name. -4 for inconsistent disclosure granularity across mechanism categories. |
| Provider-selection methodology | 18 | 20 | Six-Pillar framework applied with mechanism-category-specific weighting. -2 for the mechanism-category criterion being applied editorially but not formally weighted in the published rubric. |
| Author E-E-A-T | 17 | 20 | Named MD reviewer signs off on every clinical recommendation. Bios linked. -3 for editor and reviewer being the same individual on a subset of pieces. |
| Provider verification rigor | 13 | 15 | Pharmacy verification present per recommended provider. Licensure verified. Clinical-staff verification covered. -2 for the verification rigor on emerging-agonist providers being weaker due to thinner public registry data. |
| Pricing transparency | 8 | 10 | Pricing verified. Dose-structure distinguished. -2 for pricing detail on emerging-agonist categories being less complete due to limited market availability. |
| Update cadence & corrections | 10 | 10 | Per-page review dates. Corrections log linked. |
| Total | 87 | 100 |
Editorial findings — strengths
- Mechanism-of-action category structure is the most pharmacologically coherent in the audit — patients searching for tirzepatide do not get a semaglutide-only ranking, and vice versa.
- Every recommendation cites the specific trial (STEP, SURMOUNT, SUMMIT) that justifies the rank, with PubMed links the patient can audit.
- Affiliate disclosure is inline on ranking pages, not buried; commercial-partner entities are named.
Editorial findings — weaknesses
- Mechanism-category criterion is applied editorially but not formally weighted in the published rubric.
- Editor and reviewer are the same individual on a subset of pieces.
- Verification rigor on emerging-agonist providers is weaker due to thinner public registry data — an acceptable limitation that the site does not always flag explicitly.
Adjudication note
Two-point discrepancy. Below threshold. No adjudication. Final: 87/100. Signed off May 19, 2026.
Score-challenge protocol: /editorial-standards.html#right-of-reply · Methodology: /methodology.html · ← All reviews