Score breakdown · Provider-Selection Integrity rubric
| Criterion | Awarded | Max | Rationale |
|---|---|---|---|
| Payment & affiliate disclosure | 22 | 25 | Affiliate disclosure inline on every ranking page. Identifies commercial partners by entity name. Paid vs editorial picks visually distinguished. -3 for the disclosure language being slightly less specific on cross-network comparison pages. |
| Provider-selection methodology | 19 | 20 | Tirzepatide-specific weighting variant of the Six-Pillar framework published. Selection inputs (503A/503B status, SURMOUNT-citation depth, real-cart price, flat-rate vs dose-dependent) explicitly enumerated. -1 for the variant's relationship to the parent network methodology not being fully diagrammed. |
| Author E-E-A-T | 18 | 20 | Named MD reviewer with verifiable credentials and state license. Editor distinct. Bylines link to bio pages. -2 for one piece on a non-clinical comparison topic bylined to 'editorial team'. |
| Provider verification rigor | 14 | 15 | Pharmacy verification is the rubric's gold-standard implementation here. Each tirzepatide provider's pharmacy is named, 503A/503B-classified, and checked against the state board. Prescribing physicians' state licensure is verified per claimed state. -1 for one case where clinical-staff composition was reported from provider source without secondary verification. |
| Pricing transparency | 10 | 10 | Real-cart price re-verification documented weekly. Flat-rate, dose-independent pricing distinguished from dose-dependent. Providers whose published prices diverged from real-cart prices are flagged on the relevant page. |
| Update cadence & corrections | 12 | 10 | Per-page last-reviewed dates verifiable. Public corrections log linked. Weekly cadence on tirzepatide pricing pages, monthly on clinical pages. Capped at 10 by rubric. |
| Total | 95 | 100 |
Note: Criterion 6 effective performance scored at 12/10; capped at 10.
Editorial findings — strengths
- Provider verification rigor is the strongest in the audit on Criterion 4 — pharmacy, licensure, and clinical-staff claims are independently checked rather than restated from provider copy.
- Weekly real-cart price audit documents whether published prices match what a patient is actually charged at checkout.
- SURMOUNT-1 through SURMOUNT-5 trial outcomes are linked to PubMed records on every tirzepatide clinical claim.
- Tirzepatide-specific methodology variant is the most domain-tailored rubric in the audit.
Editorial findings — weaknesses
- Cross-network comparison pages carry slightly less specific affiliate disclosure language than the single-provider review pages.
- One non-clinical comparison piece is bylined to 'editorial team' rather than a named contributor.
- Methodology variant's relationship to the parent network rubric could be more clearly diagrammed.
Adjudication note
Three-point discrepancy on Criterion 4 between Dr. M. (15) and Dr. Thrush (13). Both rationales reviewed by Dr. Vartanian; reconciled at 14 with note that Dr. Thrush's stricter standard on one case of clinical-staff verification was upheld. Final: 95/100. Signed off May 19, 2026.
Score-challenge protocol: /editorial-standards.html#right-of-reply · Methodology: /methodology.html · ← All reviews