Editorial standards
How We Check Our Supplement Guides
Nutra Botanics sells supplements. Our guides explain ingredient research and label facts to help you compare products. This page sets the standards for new and substantively updated guides, including source limits, review credits and corrections.
Who is responsible
Read the byline and the review credit
A byline may name a contributor or Nutra Botanics as the organization responsible for a guide. Check the credit on the article itself. An organizational byline does not identify an independent medical reviewer.
Internal source and copy checks are different from clinical review. A separate clinical review should identify the reviewer's name, credentials, profile and review date. We do not claim that every page has been reviewed by a clinician.
Industry experience can provide context about ingredients and labels. It does not qualify an author to diagnose a condition or choose treatment for you.
Contributor
Three rules
Keep the answer useful and the limits clear
Evidence for the claim
Use a source that supports the specific statement. Explain what was studied, what was found and what remains uncertain. A familiar ingredient name is not enough.
Label facts and research have different jobs
A current label can establish ingredients and serving amounts. Ingredient research needs its own citation. A study of one ingredient does not establish results for a finished formula.
Limits belong beside the answer
State important gaps in plain language. Do not turn a possible benefit into a promised result, a disease claim or personal medical advice.
Choosing sources
Match the source to the question
These are source categories, not a rule that one source always overrules another.
- Labels and official guidanceProduct facts and safety context
Use the current product label for its listed ingredients, amounts and warnings. Use official health and regulatory sources for the question they address. The NIH supplement guide for consumers explains label information and safety considerations.
- Research reviewsThe wider human evidence
Systematic reviews bring relevant studies together. Their usefulness still depends on the studies included, their methods and how closely they match the reader's question. A review is not automatically decisive.
- Human trialsWhat a particular study tested
Check the people enrolled, ingredient form, amount, comparison group, duration and outcome. Explain when those details differ from the product or reader being discussed.
- Observational and lab researchAssociations and early explanations
Observational studies can show associations. Animal and laboratory studies can suggest how something might work. Identify these designs clearly and do not treat them as proof of a benefit in people.
Quality matters as well as study type. Consider bias, conflicting findings, relevance to the question, uncertainty in the estimate and missing results. These principles are described in the Cochrane Handbook discussion of evidence certainty. This is not a claim that our guides receive a formal Cochrane or GRADE assessment.
Our review steps
From the reader question to a checked page
These checks guide new articles and substantive updates. They do not imply a separate specialist review or a different person at each step.
Start with the reader's question
Give a direct answer early. Keep the explanation focused on the choice the reader needs to make.
QuestionCheck sources and access
Read the material available from the cited source. Distinguish a full paper from its abstract, and record important limits. Remove or qualify statements the available source cannot support.
SourcesCheck the current formula
Match product names, serving sizes, ingredient amounts and warnings to the current label. Check prices separately. Do not present label directions as a clinically proven dose.
Product factsReview words and page behavior
Use compact paragraphs and descriptive links. Check headings, illustrations, numbers, tables and native controls on desktop and small phones. Fix reading problems before release.
Reading checksRecord material updates
Describe meaningful corrections and the scope of the review. A new date should reflect the work actually done. A visual adjustment alone is not a fresh research review.
Update recordWhen findings disagree
Explain the disagreement
Explain why results differ
Look at study quality and the people, preparations and outcomes involved. A newer date alone does not make a result more reliable.
Make relevant limits visible
Report relevant funding or author conflicts when available. Explain when access is limited. An abstract does not provide every detail needed to assess a paper.
Leave room for an unclear answer
If the available evidence cannot settle the question, say so. Do not select only the finding that favors a product or hide a material conflicting result.
Citations
Help readers check the answer
Corrections
Show us the article and the wording
Use the Nutra Botanics contact page to send the article URL, the wording you question and a supporting source if you have one. Avoid including private medical details in an article-correction request.
- Factual corrections: fix the affected claim and check the surrounding explanation.
- Material changes: add a dated note explaining a changed conclusion, important safety context or other substantial correction.
- Appearance and typos: keep these separate from claims of a new evidence review.
- Reader credit: obtain permission before identifying a reader publicly.
If a guide is merged or replaced, use a useful redirect where appropriate and record the reason for the change. A correction request does not guarantee a publication decision or a reply time.
Commercial disclosure
Our guides come from a supplement seller
Nutra Botanics has a financial interest in the products its guides discuss. A research citation is not an independent endorsement of our brand.
Our product links: guides may link to Nutra Botanics products. Describe the product and the buying information at the destination so readers know where a link leads.
Coverage policy: do not accept payment, gifts or free products from other brands or suppliers in exchange for favorable editorial treatment. Disclose relevant relationships and funding when discussing research.
Paid material: any paid placement must be clearly identified. It must not be presented as independent editorial advice. These standards describe the policy, not an audit of every past commercial arrangement.
Use the guides within their scope
General information and personal decisions
What a guide cannot establish
- A personal result: a study average cannot promise what will happen for you.
- A treatment choice: a product comparison cannot diagnose a condition or replace a prescription.
- A complete safety check: a general article cannot account for your medicines, health history or full supplement routine.
What to take to a healthcare professional
- The full label: bring the ingredient list, serving directions and warnings.
- Your routine: include medicines and other supplements when discussing possible interactions.
- Your circumstances: ask before using a supplement during pregnancy or nursing, giving one to a child or changing treatment.
The NIH consumer guide to supplement safety explains why these conversations matter.
A useful next step
Check a guide or flag a correction
Browse the library for your question. If an answer needs correcting, send the specific article and claim through our contact page.
Records and product documents
Check the scope of any review or document
Read the update note on the individual guide. A label check, a reading check and a research review cover different work. None by itself establishes independent clinical review.
For manufacturing or testing documents, ask support about the specific product and lot. Check what a document covers before relying on a testing or certification claim.
Product feedback also needs context. Public use requires permission, and a verified-purchase label requires an order check. Do not invent ratings or reviews.