How We Review

Last reviewed: May 2026

Most wellness content on the internet begins with a conclusion and works backward. The product is decided upon, the affiliate link is placed, and the review is written to justify it. The research is selected to support, not interrogate. The claimed doses are taken from marketing copy, not the Supplement Facts panel. The studies are described vaguely, without names or journals, because specific attribution would invite scrutiny.

This methodology page exists because we do the opposite. What follows is a complete, step-by-step account of how every product review, ingredient analysis, and telehealth platform assessment on Dean Silver Wellness is produced. It is not aspirational. It is operational.

Step 1: Source Acquisition — Official Pages Only

Before a single sentence is written, we fetch the official brand website or platform URL. Not a third-party retailer. Not an aggregator. The brand's own domain.

From that source, we extract: the complete product name, the full ingredient list, all pricing tiers and subscription terms, the refund and guarantee policy in its exact published language, available certifications, and any third-party testing claims. Everything we document is timestamped with a “last verified” date that reflects an actual fetch — not a cosmetic date update applied months later.

If a claimed source cannot be fetched and verified, it is not used.

Step 2: Label vs. Marketing Discrepancy Check

For dietary supplement reviews, Step 2 is a mandatory comparison between the Supplement Facts panel and the brand's marketing ingredient claims.

This step exists because the discrepancy between what a label contains and what a brand's homepage claims is one of the most common forms of misleading supplement marketing. A brand may describe an ingredient as a “core component” in its marketing copy while including it only as a trace amount in the actual formula. We identify those gaps and report them explicitly in every review.

We write only to the verified Supplement Facts panel. Marketing ingredient claims that cannot be confirmed on the panel are not reproduced as fact. If an ingredient appears on the panel at a dose that falls below the amount used in the cited clinical research, we note that discrepancy in the review.

Step 3: Primary Question Identification

Every article addresses one clearly-defined primary question — the actual question a reader with this specific health concern would type into a search engine. This drives the TL;DR Answer Block that appears at the top of every article, immediately after the byline, as a self-contained 50–100 word summary of our conclusions.

We identify this question before writing begins. Content that doesn't address a demonstrable, real-world reader question doesn't get produced.

Step 4: Systematic Literature Review

For every ingredient we cover, we conduct a systematic search of PubMed (the U.S. National Library of Medicine's biomedical literature database). We do not accept citations that cannot be independently located and verified on PubMed or in a verifiable, peer-reviewed journal.

Every study cited on this site is attributed with: first author's last name, publication year, and journal name — at minimum. Example: “Wankhede et al., 2015, Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition.” Vague attributions such as “a recent study” or “research suggests” without specific citation are not used in our content.

We also require that our coverage explicitly distinguish between types of evidence:

• Human randomized controlled trials — the highest standard for supplement efficacy claims
• Observational human studies — useful for identifying associations, not causation
• Preclinical (in-vitro or animal) research — mechanistically informative but not a reliable basis for human efficacy claims
• Manufacturer-funded studies — cited with source transparency and appropriate skepticism

If the evidence base for a specific ingredient or claim consists only of preclinical research, that limitation is stated explicitly in the article. We do not present mechanistic plausibility as established human efficacy.

Step 5: Regulatory and Compliance Classification

Every product is classified before writing begins according to its regulatory category. This classification determines which compliance requirements apply to the content:

• DSHEA dietary supplements: Structure/function claims only. FDA evaluation statement required. No disease claims permitted.
• Telehealth platforms: Three-entity disclosure required (platform + prescribing entity + dispensing pharmacy). Compounding disclosure required where applicable. Pricing transparency mandatory.
• Compounded medications: Explicit disclosure that compounded preparations are not FDA-approved finished drug products. Pharmacy licensing verification guidance included.
• Prescription medications discussed in editorial context: Distinction between FDA-approved, compounded, and OTC status clearly established.

Step 6: SERP Landscape Assessment

Before writing, we assess the current search landscape for the primary keyword. We identify what is ranking, what content type is winning, and what reader questions are not being answered well by existing results. Content that doesn't fill a demonstrable gap is deprioritized. Content that duplicates what is already well-covered without adding substantive value is not produced.

Step 7: Drafting to Verified Facts Only

Every claim in our content has one of three statuses at time of drafting:

1. Verified — confirmed against a primary source with date and URL documented
2. Attributed — cited from a named study with author, year, and journal
3. Explicitly unverified — flagged in-article as unverified or under investigation if included at all

Claims that cannot be assigned one of these three statuses are not published. We do not extrapolate. We do not infer beyond the data. We do not reproduce manufacturer claims as independent research findings.

Step 8: Compliance Review Before Publication

Every article undergoes a pre-publication compliance sweep covering:

• Brand and trademark risk check
• Regulatory classification confirmation
• YMYL standard compliance (named editorial entity, evidence qualification language, disease claim test)
• FTC affiliate disclosure verification (in-article, proximate to first paid link, “paid link” language confirmed)
• Schema accuracy verification

No article publishes until this sweep is complete.

What Our Reviews Explicitly Do Not Do

• We do not fabricate study citations, testimonials, statistics, ingredient specifications, or clinical trial data.
• We do not reproduce manufacturer efficacy claims as independent research findings.
• We do not apply star ratings, numerical scores, or aggregate ratings to products reviewed on this site.
• We do not claim products “will” produce specific outcomes, are “proven to” deliver benefits, or are “guaranteed to” work. Evidence qualification language is mandatory on all supplement and health claims.
• We do not claim FDA approval for products that are not FDA-approved.
• We do not attribute product formulation or design to this publication. Products are credited to the brands that created them.

Currency and Update Policy

Supplement formulations change. Telehealth pricing changes. Regulatory classifications change. “Last verified” dates in our content reflect genuine re-verification — not cosmetic date updates. When meaningful changes occur (new formula, changed pricing, regulatory developments), the affected content is substantively updated, and the change is noted transparently in the article.

Content refresh cadence: product-focused reviews are re-verified every 6–12 months. Telehealth platform assessments are re-verified quarterly due to the pace of pricing and policy changes in that category. Ingredient research pages are updated when meaningful new human clinical studies publish.