Skip to main content
Editorial Standards

How We Rate Products, Clinics & Educational Guides

Every rating on New Body Manual is the result of a structured, evidence-based scoring process. We independently research each compound, clinic, and supplement — and we explain our reasoning so you can evaluate it yourself.

Our Core Editorial Commitment

Some product and clinic links may compensate New Body Manual. This does not influence our ratings. A product or clinic earns its score based on the criteria described below.

When a page includes compensated links, we label that relationship and link to the details. See our full affiliate disclosure →

Four Separate Methodologies

Product roundups

We score supplements and support products on category fit, ingredient clarity, testing signals, practical usability, price, and availability.

Clinic rankings

We prioritize clinician access, care-model depth, pricing transparency, pharmacy standards, follow-up support, and clear patient caveats.

Supplement education

We separate better-supported ingredients from emerging or limited categories, and we avoid disease-treatment promises.

Peptide and medication guides

We keep FDA-approved medications, prescription care, and research-only peptide topics clearly separated.

The NBM Score

Our proprietary rating scale runs from 1.0 to 5.0 and is calculated using five weighted criteria. Scores are reviewed and updated when significant new research is published or when a product's regulatory status changes.

4.5 – 5.0
Exceptional

FDA-approved with extensive safety and efficacy data. Recommended for most eligible users.

4.0 – 4.4
Very Good

Strong evidence base with favorable safety. Minor limitations in data or accessibility.

3.5 – 3.9
Good

Promising evidence but limited by trial size, duration, or research-only status.

3.0 – 3.4
Fair

Mixed evidence or notable safety concerns. Situationally useful with appropriate supervision.

Below 3.0
Caution

Insufficient evidence or meaningful safety concerns. Use with extreme caution.

Scoring Criteria & Weights

🔬

Clinical Evidence

30%

We evaluate the quality, quantity, and recency of peer-reviewed research. FDA-approved compounds with Phase 3 trial data score highest. Research-only peptides are scored on animal and limited human data quality.

  • Number of randomized controlled trials
  • Sample sizes and trial duration
  • FDA approval status
  • Mechanism of action clarity
  • Replication across independent labs
🛡️

Safety Profile

25%

We assess known side effects, long-term risk data, contraindications, and post-market surveillance data. Compounds with decades of real-world use score higher than newly available options.

  • Known adverse event frequency
  • Serious adverse event risk
  • Drug interaction data
  • Long-term safety follow-up
  • Real-world safety (FDA FAERS data)
📊

Efficacy vs. Alternatives

25%

We compare each compound against the best available alternative. A peptide is only useful if it outperforms cheaper, safer, or more accessible options for the same goal.

  • Head-to-head trial data
  • Effect size vs. placebo
  • Consistency of results
  • Time to effect
  • Maintenance of results after discontinuation
💰

Accessibility & Cost

10%

The best compound in the world is useless if most people can't access or afford it. We score for insurance coverage, compounding availability, generic options, and real-world monthly cost.

  • Insurance coverage rates
  • Compounded alternative availability
  • GoodRx / cash pay pricing
  • Telehealth prescribability
📋

Editorial Trust Factors

10%

Regulatory status, black box warnings, and pending legal issues all affect our score. Compounds under FDA scrutiny or with significant legal action are scored down regardless of efficacy.

  • Regulatory status (FDA, DEA)
  • Absence of black box warnings
  • No pending safety recalls
  • Quality of prescribing guidelines

Our Review Process

01

Literature Review

We search PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, and FDA databases for all available research on the compound or product.

02

Score Assignment

Each criterion is scored against the same framework so products and clinics can be compared consistently.

03

Clinical Review Flagging

Higher-risk content is flagged for clinical review when available, and all health claims are hedged or sourced before publication.

04

Link Review

Pages with compensated links include a clear note so readers understand how links work.

05

Ongoing Updates

Scores are reviewed when significant new research publishes or regulatory status changes. Each page shows a "Last Reviewed" date.

How We Rate Telehealth Clinics

Clinic ratings use a separate framework focused on clinician credentials, care quality, pricing transparency, pharmacy standards, and patient experience.

25%
Physician credentials & board certification
20%
Compounding pharmacy standards
25%
Protocol personalization & follow-up
15%
Pricing transparency
15%
Patient review quality & volume

Have questions about our editorial process, a correction request, or want to dispute a rating? We take accuracy seriously.

editorial@newbodymanual.com →