Rating Methodology
Supplement
Our process for assessing supplement suppliers involves comprehensive research of individual products. We collect qualitative and quantitative data about each brand and the user experience to make direct comparisons between supplements. We evaluate brands based on three criteria: Reputation, Quality & Transparency, and Pricing.
Brand Transparency
We will consider various factors related to brands and companies, including their age of establishment and whether they have FDA assurance of safety and quality or comply with FDA regulations. Additionally, we will review customer feedback and any past lawsuits related to product quality from the time of establishment until now.
| Rating | Scale | Features |
| 5 | Renowned | Including the features of (4) The product has a seal from one of the following reliable organizations: NSF International, US Pharmacopeia, Underwriters Laboratory, USP Dietary Verification Program, or Consumer Lab. It has received positive reviews from consumers. |
| 4 | Good | The company has been on the market for a long time and is both cGMP certified and FDA approved. They provide complete information about their products, including certification from a third party, good customer service, and clear policy information (shipping & returns, refunds, privacy, etc.). Their website includes full product information (ingredients, application, dosages, etc.), pictures of the packaging, and a disclaimer on the product packaging. The website is user-friendly and the company has received mostly positive reviews from consumers. |
| 3 | Average | The company is certified with cGMP. It has received certification from reputable third parties. There is some disclaimer information. The company has received mixed reviews from customers. The website is not user-friendly. The customer service is poor. There have been complaints about shipping, returns, and money-back policies. |
| 2 | Substandard | The product does not meet FDA or GMP requirements. The packaging lacks disclaimer information. The company provides limited information. The majority of consumers have given low ratings. No policy information regarding shipping, returns, or money-back has been found. |
| 1 | Dubious | Be cautious of this company as they have been reported as a scam and have received negative customer reviews. Additionally, there is no information available about their customer service. It is important to take note of the warning issued by a government agency. |
Quality
- Sourcing ans Ingredients: The safe source of the material will be reviewed and validated. The ingredients listed on the packaging and in the product description will also be validated.
- Third-Party Testing: To verify ingredient content and potential contaminants, we will review certificates of analysis (COAs). It is important to compare the validity period stated on the product with that on the COAs. This is almost mandatory for a high-quality product. We will also examine the LOQ or LOD labs to obtain an accurate estimate of the THC content in the product.
- Manufacturing Standard: To ensure a quality product, it is essential that the manufacturing facility is FDA compliant and adheres to good practices. The address of the facility and the production method will be provided for optimal results.
| Rating | Scale | Features |
| 5 | Excellent Quality | The product contains natural ingredients and has been certified effective by third-party testing. There is no recall history and the factory meets GMP standards. Additionally, there are no additives and no negative reviews from consumers. |
| 4 | Good | The factory adheres to GMP standards. The product has been certified effective through third-party testing or in-house clinical trials. There is no history of recalls. The product contains one to two controversial substances or additives in allowable amounts. Some consumers have left negative reviews regarding the product’s effectiveness. |
| 3 | Acceptable | The factory meets Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) standards. It has a history of recovery and reformulation. The product contains an acceptable level of synthetic ingredients. The effectiveness of the product is evaluated solely by the manufacturer. There are mixed reviews from consumers regarding its effects. |
| 2 | Unrecommend | The factory does not meet Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) standards. The product contains very few natural ingredients and has many additives and controversial ingredients. The effectiveness of the ingredients has not been proven. Additionally, the product has a recall history and has not been reformulated. Negative customer feedback has also been reported. |
| 1 | Awful | The product contains harmful ingredients and falsely claims to have safe ingredients, making it unsuitable for use. |
Safety
- Side Effects: Although the product is generally effective, it may also cause certain side effects such as dryness, decreased appetite, drowsiness, and fatigue. It is important to note that the products reviewed may interact with other medications you are taking. We strive to provide comprehensive information on the side effects of each product.
- Ingredient: Another concern is the unreliability of product purity and evaluation. We will provide lab reports and expert opinions on the products we review. The ingredients in the products have been approved by the FDA.
We strive to provide informative content, but please note that any subjective evaluations will be clearly marked as such. If you have underlying medical conditions and plan to use supplement products, it is important to consult with your doctor.
| Rating | Scale | Features |
| 5 | Very safe | Including the features from (4) The product has not received any customer complaints regarding allergies and has not been reported to cause any side effects. |
| 4 | Safe | Including the FDA features from (3) There have been reports of slight allergic reactions to one or two ingredients. Additionally, there are reports of 1-2 common side effects experienced by consumers. It is safe to use this product with other medications. |
| 3 | Average | The product contains FDA-approved dietary supplements that include certain ‘new dietary ingredients’. These ingredients must be submitted to the FDA as a premarket safety notification at least 75 days before marketing. It is important to note that these supplements may cause allergies. Additionally, there have been reports of 3-4 slight side effects and potential negative interactions when used with other drugs. |
| 2 | Unrecommend | This medication may cause severe adverse effects and has been associated with negative side effect reports. It should not be used with other medications. |
| 1 | Harmful | Cannot be used |
Supporting Clinical Research
While product test claims are often highly accurate, they are by no means absolute. In order to increase our customers’ confidence when using our products, we have established criteria for verifying the accuracy of product claims.
There are 2 main types of research:
– Randomised controlled trial (RCT)
– Observational studies
Randomised controlled trial (RCT): An RCT is a type of scientific experiment that is used to control for factors that are not directly under experimental control. Clinical trials comparing the effects of drugs, surgical techniques, medical devices, diagnostic procedures or other medical treatments are examples of RCTs.
An RCT allows for statistical control of these influences by randomly assigning participants to one of two treatments. An RCT can achieve sufficient control over these confounding factors to provide a useful comparison of the treatments being studied if it is well designed, properly conducted, and enrols a sufficient number of participants.
Observational studies: Unlike the RCT method described above, which uses randomised subjects and can be difficult to analyse and draw conclusions from, these studies have clearly specified target groups in order to accurately analyse the effects of products on specific target groups.
Combining the two studies above means that very few real-life cases are missed in the study and the claims are more accurate.
Supporting clinical research is part of medical and health research aimed at generating knowledge that is valuable for health promotion and prevention.
| Rating | Scale | Features |
| 5 | Strong Support Research | Including features from (4)The studies supporting the claims and ingredients are strong and up to date over several time periods; conduct 1-2 randomised controlled trials (RCT) and observational studies for human health. Research published on reputable portals (Pubmed, NIH, etc.) |
| 4 | Well Research | Including features from (3)Multiple studies from health organisations for claims; Only conduct in-house testing; Only conduct observational human health studies related to ingredients in product |
| 3 | Sufficient Research | Few types of research by individuals have at least 1 human health study or animal/laboratory study. |
| 2 | Little Support Research | Insufficient evidence to support claims; studies used are controversial and invalid; didn’t involve animal testing. |
| 1 | False/No Support Research | False claims; False or no supporting evidence |
Value
Price has always been one of the key factors influencing consumers’ purchasing decisions. We always want to guide users to products that offer a balance between quality and value.
CLIC editors and health professionals will combine the above factors and compare them with the prices of alternative products on the market, as well as reviews from users who have purchased the product, to give consumers the most objective view of the value of that product.
| Rating | Scale | Features |
| 5 | Most Worth | Worth the price with good quality; Worth repurchasing; Best value for money. |
| 4 | Reasonable price | High price for good quality; May consider repurchase; Lots of positive customer reviews. |
| 3 | Considerable | Considered but high price; Mixed reviews from customers; |
| 2 | Not worth buying | Considering buying, but high price; Mixed reviews from customers; Price does not match quality; There are better alternatives; Bad reviews from consumers. |
| 1 | Don’t buy / Unavailable | Not worth your money; No price available |
Health Service
Our methodology for evaluating online therapy providers is thorough and data-driven. We were able to compare services directly by collecting qualitative and quantitative data about each company and their users’ experiences.
We evaluated each company based on its ease of use, sign-up process, subscription offerings, client privacy and ease of switching therapists. We then looked at therapist qualifications, the different types of therapy available, quality of care, client-therapist communication options, session length and the therapist matching process. Finally, we considered cost, value for money, insurance, overall user satisfaction and the likelihood that clients would recommend the service.
Ease of use
We base our ratings on our real-life experience and through user satisfaction surveys on issues such as Is the sign up process really quick and easy? What are the options for communicating with customer support? And what is the speed of response? The process of switching between service plans is complicated.
| Rating | Scale | Features |
| 5 | Extremely user-friendly | The website is very easy to use, even for beginners. The procedures for registering and using the services are full of specific instructions. In addition, the website must have support features for people with disabilities. |
| 4 | Easy to use | The site is very easy to use, even for users. Registration is quick. |
| 3 | Not difficult to use | The process of using the service is a bit complicated, but the support is quick to help. |
| 2 | Difficult to use | The process of registering and using the service is complicated and the supporter is slow to respond. |
| 1 | Impossible to use | The process of registering and using the service is too complicated, can’t get help from the supporter |
Quality
- Brand transparency: whether or not companies have transparency in their business licences or are owned by reputable companies. Are there any lawsuits or controversies in the business?
- Core value: We will compare the quality of the service with the respective platforms. Who provides the service, is it suitable for online, licensed companies, qualified and licensed or research proven?
- Personalisation:Whether the service is personalised for specific users.
- Add-on: Are the add-on services really of good quality, are the prices reasonable, are there any discounts?
| Rating | Scale | Features |
| 5 | Excellent | Services are personalised for each user. Services are provided by reputable, qualified professionals, services are transparently licensed. Quality of service is rated as good by over 90% of respondents. Low prices and useful and inexpensive additional services. |
| 4 | Good | The service is secure, has a business license, and is third-party certified. Most reviews of the service are good. There is not a single bad review about the service. |
| 3 | Fair | The service is generally reliable, although there has been some negative feedback. The pricing and quality are average, and the licensing terms are not transparent. |
| 2 | Poor | There is a lack of research or scientific evidence to support the service, which is performed by individuals without a scientific background. Additionally, there have been numerous negative reviews. |
| 1 | Bad | The majority of users have rated the service poorly due to its lack of research and operating license. Additionally, the service’s quality is subpar and does not effectively address the needs of its users. |
Cost
We will determine the cost of the services. Can benefits cover any of these costs? Will we compare rates to those of a competitor or traditional, in-person therapy? Is there a possibility of a discount?
| Rating | Scale | Features |
| 5 | Must Buy | The product is offered at a highly competitive price and is very effective. It is definitely worth considering purchasing again, and there are also various customer incentives available. |
| 4 | Worth buying | The effectiveness of the product is evident from its reasonable price. Numerous positive reports attest to its efficacy. |
| 3 | Considering to buy | Consider purchasing, but only at a reasonable price. This service is advantageous when compared to others in the same price range. |
| 2 | Inappropriate to buy | The product has received negative feedback from customers and is priced high. |
| 1 | Don’t Buy | The product has received negative reviews from all users due to its high price in relation to its quality. |
Support Research
Our research team purchases, tests, and compares a variety of telehealth services
to provide you with the best options. We write comprehensive reviews and guides, and our articles are reviewed for accuracy by one or more members of our Medical Review Board. Do you require any third-party certificates?
| Rating | Scale | Features |
| 5 | Very Well Researched | This medical organization is guaranteed to provide quality services due to their extensive experience and licensing in research. |
| 4 | Good Researched | Third parties endorse service studies and tests have proven the service to be safe for human health. |
| 3 | Minimal Support Research | There is limited research on the safety of this service for humans. At least one study on human health is required. |
| 2 | Weak Support Research | Many of the claims and research lack corroboration from highly reputable sources. |
| 1 | No Research | No claims or proofs of approved products or services are made. |
Customer Services
Actual user experience will be evaluated, and a team of experts will review these services.
Customer data can be collected using customized surveys, and CSAT surveys provide valuable qualitative insight into customer behavior and motivations. These rating scale tools are necessary to understand the feelings of customers. However, new data tools are now available to supplement traditional survey questions and collect a more comprehensive customer voice (VOC).
| Rating | Scale | Features |
| 5 | Very Satisfied | All customers surveyed agreed that they had a positive service experience and would be willing to use the service again and recommend it to others. |
| 4 | Satisfied | Most reviewers are satisfied with the service, and any issues encountered during use are promptly resolved. |
| 3 | Neutral | Most surveys indicate that customers had a positive service experience. However, a minority of customers reported a negative experience. |
| 2 | Unsatisfied | Several customers have expressed dissatisfaction with the service experience and have stated that they will not use the service again. |
| 1 | Very Unsatisfied | Most surveys show that they have had a bad experience using the service. |