Score breakdown · Provider-Selection Integrity rubric
| Criterion | Awarded | Max | Rationale |
|---|---|---|---|
| Payment & affiliate disclosure | 21 | 25 | Disclosure inline. Entity-level identification of commercial partners. -4 for the disclosure language varying between semaglutide provider pages and cross-comparison pages. |
| Provider-selection methodology | 18 | 20 | Six-Pillar framework applied with semaglutide-specific weighting. -2 for the variant's relationship to the parent framework not being fully diagrammed. |
| Author E-E-A-T | 17 | 20 | Named MD reviewer with verifiable credentials. -3 for one clinical-topic piece bylined to a non-MD contributor without parallel MD reviewer attribution. |
| Provider verification rigor | 13 | 15 | STEP-1 through STEP-8 outcome data uniformly cited. Pharmacy 503A/503B status verified. State licensure verified. -2 for clinical-staff verification not reaching the depth of TirzepatideReview or GLPOneRx. |
| Pricing transparency | 9 | 10 | Pricing verified. Dose-structure distinguished. -1 for one provider whose published price was found to differ from real-cart price during the audit window. |
| Update cadence & corrections | 11 | 10 | Per-page review dates. Corrections log linked. Capped at 10. |
| Total | 89 | 100 |
Note: Criterion 6 effective performance scored at 11/10; capped at 10.
Editorial findings — strengths
- STEP trial outcome citations are uniformly linked to the PubMed record on every relevant clinical claim.
- Corrections log treats published-price-vs-real-cart-price discrepancies as recordable corrections, with date and resolution.
- Long-form clinical narrative is the strongest in the audit; the site treats explanation as editorial work, not SEO filler.
Editorial findings — weaknesses
- Affiliate disclosure language is not uniform between single-provider pages and cross-comparison pages.
- One clinical-topic piece is bylined to a non-MD contributor without parallel MD reviewer attribution.
- Clinical-staff verification is present but does not reach the depth of the audit's leaders on this criterion.
Adjudication note
Three-point discrepancy on Criterion 1. Reviewed by Dr. Vartanian; reconciled at 21 with note that Dr. Thrush's stricter scoring on cross-page disclosure variance was upheld. Final: 89/100. Signed off May 19, 2026.
Score-challenge protocol: /editorial-standards.html#right-of-reply · Methodology: /methodology.html · ← All reviews