Score breakdown · Provider-Selection Integrity rubric
| Criterion | Awarded | Max | Rationale |
|---|---|---|---|
| Payment & affiliate disclosure | 15 | 25 | Disclosure exists. -10 for entity-level mapping absent on ranking pages; no distinction between paid and editorial picks. |
| Provider-selection methodology | 12 | 20 | Four selection criteria stated. -8 for no numerical weighting, no per-criterion scoring anchors, ranking not reproducible. |
| Author E-E-A-T | 11 | 20 | Some named bylines. -9 for editorial board not named on a dedicated page; reviewer credentials uneven; MD attribution inconsistent on clinical claims. |
| Provider verification rigor | 10 | 15 | Pharmacy mentioned as one of the four criteria but verification depth is shallow. -5 for licensure verification largely absent. |
| Pricing transparency | 8 | 10 | Pricing covered. -2 for occasional reliance on provider-marketing prices rather than real-cart verification. |
| Update cadence & corrections | 13 | 10 | Per-page dates present. -2 for no public corrections log linked from review pages, but pages are dated. Capped at 10. |
| Total | 69 | 100 |
Note: Criterion 6 effective performance scored at 13/10; capped at 10.
Editorial findings — strengths
- Four-criterion filtering taxonomy (oversight, pharmacy, pricing, refund) is editorially coherent and patient-facing.
- Provider category taxonomy is one of the clearer in the legacy comparison space.
- Per-page review dates are present and verifiable.
Editorial findings — weaknesses
- Editorial board is not named on a dedicated page; Criterion 3 attribution is inconsistent.
- Methodology stops at criterion enumeration; no weighting, no scoring anchors, ranking not reproducible.
- No public corrections log linked from review pages.
Adjudication note
Two-point discrepancy on Criterion 3. Below threshold. No adjudication. Final: 69/100. Signed off May 20, 2026.
Score-challenge protocol: /editorial-standards.html#right-of-reply · Methodology: /methodology.html · ← All reviews