Editorial Standards

This page documents the editorial standards that govern every piece of content published on TotalHealth Research Desk. These standards apply equally to product reviews, ingredient deep-dives, comparison guides, and pillar content. They are publicly documented so readers can hold us to them.

Our Source Standards

We rely on the following categories of sources, in roughly this order of weight:

• Peer-reviewed research indexed in PubMed, including human randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses, systematic reviews, and observational studies. Studies are cited by named author, year, and journal.
• Federal regulatory sources: the FDA, NIH, NIH Office of Dietary Supplements (ODS), CDC, and FTC for matters of regulatory status, labeling, and consumer protection enforcement.
• Authoritative medical society publications: the Endocrine Society, American Heart Association, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, North American Menopause Society, and equivalent organizations for clinical guidance and consensus statements.
• Brand-published primary sources: Supplement Facts panels, official ingredient lists, published pricing, refund policies, and certifications, as documented directly from the brand's website.
• Third-party testing organizations: NSF, USP, Informed Choice, ConsumerLab, Labdoor, and similar organizations, for certification verification.

We do not treat brand marketing copy as a source of fact about a product's effects. We treat marketing copy as claims to be verified against the panel, the research, and the regulatory framework.

Anti-Fabrication Commitment

TotalHealth Research Desk does not publish fabricated information. This is the most basic of our editorial commitments:

• We do not invent research studies, study findings, or statistical claims.
• We do not invent ingredient effects, mechanisms of action, or research-supported benefits.
• We do not invent customer testimonials, patient outcomes, or user experiences.
• We do not invent physician endorsements, expert quotes, or third-party validations.
• We do not invent product specifications, ingredient lists, or Supplement Facts panel contents.
• We do not invent FDA approvals, clinical trial results, or regulatory clearances.

If a piece of information cannot be verified from a source we can name, we either omit it or explicitly mark it as unverified. There is no middle ground.

Brand and Product Attribution

Product formulation is always credited to the brand. Our editorial team did not formulate any product covered on this site. We did not develop any ingredient. We did not design any product. The brand is responsible for what the product is. We are responsible for the editorial coverage of that product.

This means:

• We write “the brand's formulation includes” — not “our formulation.”
• We write “the manufacturer's published research suggests” — not “our research shows.”
• We write “the brand offers a 90-day refund window” — not “we offer.”

The boundary between editorial coverage and brand responsibility for the product is bright and is maintained on every page.

Evidence Qualification

Every health-related claim in our content carries appropriate evidence qualification. We use:

• “May support” — for structure-function effects with research backing.
• “Is associated with” — for findings from observational research or correlational studies.
• “Clinical research suggests” — for findings from clinical trials, with the trial size and quality noted in context.
• “Preliminary research indicates” — for findings from small or pilot studies that have not been replicated.
• “Animal research has shown” — for findings from animal models that have not been demonstrated in humans.

We do not use absolute efficacy language: “will,” “guaranteed to,” “proven to,” “definitely.” We do not use disease-claim language for supplements: “treats,” “cures,” “prevents,” “diagnoses.” These rules are not stylistic preferences. They are compliance requirements under DSHEA and FTC guidance, and they are also a matter of intellectual honesty about what the evidence supports.

Citation Standards

Every research citation in our content names at minimum the first author, the year, and the journal:

“Wankhede et al., 2015, Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition”

We do not write “studies show,” “research suggests,” or “clinical research indicates” without naming the underlying studies. If a study cannot be located on PubMed or in another verifiable peer-reviewed source, it does not get cited as evidence.

Where we summarize a body of research rather than a single study, we identify the studies involved and link to a meta-analysis or systematic review where available. We do not let the convenience of generic “research shows” phrasing replace the discipline of identifying which research.

What We Will Not Publish

• Content with fabricated studies, ingredients, or testimonials.
• Content that makes disease claims for dietary supplements.
• Content claiming FDA approval for products that are not FDA-approved.
• Content that misrepresents the regulatory status of a compounded medication.
• Content that omits the FTC-required paid link disclosure on monetized articles.
• Content that uses absolute efficacy language (“will,” “proven to,” “guaranteed”).
• Content that reproduces marketing copy as if it were independent research.
• Content that uses Review, AggregateRating, or Rating schema (we follow current Google guidance).
• Content that places ranked positions or “Our #1 Pick” labels on comparison reviews. Comparisons are scenario-matched: “Best for [specific situation]” rather than “Best overall.”

Corrections Policy

If you identify a factual error in our content, please report it via our contact form. Use the “Editorial Correction” inquiry type to flag the article and the specific error. We review every correction request.

Confirmed corrections are issued at the top of the affected article. The original error is noted, the correction is stated, and the correction date is posted. We do not silently edit articles to fix factual errors. Transparent correction is a core commitment.

What qualifies as a correction-worthy error:

• Factual errors in research citations (wrong author, year, journal, or finding).
• Errors in pricing, refund policy, or guarantee terms.
• Errors in ingredient lists or Supplement Facts panel reporting.
• Errors in regulatory status descriptions.
• Errors in brand or product attribution.
• Outdated claims that the article does not flag as outdated.

What does not qualify as a correction-worthy error:

• Disagreement with an editorial conclusion. We welcome feedback, but conclusions are editorial judgments based on the evidence, not facts to be corrected.
• Disagreement with our use of evidence-qualified language. “May support” rather than “treats” is a compliance and intellectual-honesty requirement, not an error.
• Disagreement with our refusal to publish disease claims. We will not retract DSHEA-compliant language to satisfy a brand or reader request.

Editorial Independence

TotalHealth Research Desk operates editorially independent of every brand we cover. The presence or absence of an affiliate relationship does not determine coverage, conclusions, or comparative positioning. Brands cannot pay to be reviewed. Brands cannot pay to be reviewed favorably. Brands cannot pay to be excluded from a comparison. The full affiliate relationship policy is documented on our Research & Disclosure Standards page.

AI and Editorial Process

Some of our editorial workflow makes use of AI tools for research synthesis, literature search, and initial drafting. Every published piece is subject to the verification protocol documented on our How We Review page, and every piece is edited and approved by Kim Larson, the Editorial Lead, before publication. AI-assisted drafting does not replace verification, named citation, evidence qualification, or editorial accountability. It is one of the tools the editorial team uses; the standards above govern the output regardless of which tools produced the first draft.

Currency and Updates

Every article includes a “Last verified” date that reflects an actual re-verification of the article's substantive content — pricing, refund policy, ingredient lists, third-party testing status, and regulatory framework. When we refresh an article, we re-run the verification protocol, update the content, and post the updated verification date. Cosmetic date changes without substantive re-verification are not our standard.

Editorial Contact

For corrections, content suggestions, partnership inquiries, or any other editorial matter, use our contact form. The editorial team reviews submissions and responds to legitimate editorial inquiries.

---

Some links on this site are paid links. If you purchase through them, TotalHealthRD.com may earn a commission at no additional cost to you. This does not influence our research or conclusions. See our Research & Disclosure Standards for full details.