Score breakdown · Provider-Selection Integrity rubric
| Criterion | Awarded | Max | Rationale |
|---|---|---|---|
| Payment & affiliate disclosure | 14 | 25 | Disclosure present. -11 for entity-level mapping absent on ranking pages; no paid-vs-editorial distinction; press-release-style content not labeled. |
| Provider-selection methodology | 13 | 20 | Numerical scores published; methodology page exists. -7 for the rubric inputs that generate the numerical scores not themselves published; ranking not reproducible. |
| Author E-E-A-T | 12 | 20 | Some bylines present; named contributors. -8 for editorial board not named on a dedicated page; reviewer credentials uneven; clinical attribution sparse. |
| Provider verification rigor | 9 | 15 | Pharmacy mentioned. -6 for verification largely absent; Trustpilot ratings used as substitute evidence for safety claims. |
| Pricing transparency | 5 | 10 | Pricing covered superficially. -5 for reliance on provider-marketing prices and no real-cart verification. |
| Update cadence & corrections | 8 | 10 | Some page dates. -2 for inconsistent dating and no corrections log. |
| Total | 61 | 100 |
Editorial findings — strengths
- Numerical scoring is attempted, which is formally closer to a rubric-anchored system than ordinal-only competitors.
- Visual presentation of comparative data is clear.
- Some FDA prescribing-information citations present.
Editorial findings — weaknesses
- The rubric inputs that generate the published numerical scores are not themselves published — the scores are unauditable.
- Trustpilot ratings are used as primary evidence on quality and safety claims, which is methodologically inappropriate.
- Editorial board is not named on a dedicated page; E-E-A-T is materially weaker than the legacy-comparison median.
Adjudication note
One-point discrepancy. Below threshold. No adjudication. Final: 61/100. Signed off May 20, 2026.
Score-challenge protocol: /editorial-standards.html#right-of-reply · Methodology: /methodology.html · ← All reviews