Score breakdown · Provider-Selection Integrity rubric
| Criterion | Awarded | Max | Rationale |
|---|---|---|---|
| Payment & affiliate disclosure | 5 | 25 | Operator status implicit from the domain. -20 for no inline disclosure that the publisher ranks itself first on its own ranking content; the ranking page does not state that the top-ranked entity is the publisher. |
| Provider-selection methodology | 8 | 20 | Some criteria mentioned. -12 for criteria stated promotionally rather than as a published rubric; weighting absent; reproducibility test fails completely. |
| Author E-E-A-T | 7 | 20 | Some bylines. -13 for content authored by employees of the operator; editorial independence structurally impossible; MD attribution sparse on clinical claims. |
| Provider verification rigor | 6 | 15 | Some pharmacy mentions. -9 for verification absent; the operator describes its own pharmacy classification but does not verify competitors' against state board records. |
| Pricing transparency | 4 | 10 | Some pricing. -6 for pricing presented promotionally rather than via real-cart verification. |
| Update cadence & corrections | 4 | 10 | Some dates. -6 for inconsistent and no corrections log. |
| Total | 34 | 100 |
Editorial findings — strengths
- Operator status is implicit from the domain — the conflict is visible to a careful reader who checks the URL.
- Some FDA prescribing-information citations are present in clinical sections.
- Content is editorially formatted rather than purely promotional in some passages.
Editorial findings — weaknesses
- The publisher ranks itself first on its own “Best of 2026” ranking. The ranking page does not state that the top-ranked entity is the publisher.
- Selection methodology is stated promotionally rather than as a published, weighted rubric.
- Editorial content is authored by employees of the operator, making editorial independence structurally impossible.
Adjudication note
Two-point discrepancy on Criterion 1. Below threshold. No adjudication. Final: 34/100. Signed off May 20, 2026.
Score-challenge protocol: /editorial-standards.html#right-of-reply · Methodology: /methodology.html · ← All reviews