Five inputs
- Product information. Current publicly available materials for the product: ingredient list, format, directions, guarantee and purchasing terms, recorded with the date reviewed.
- Ingredient information. Which ingredients are named, in what order, in what form, and at what quantity — noting explicitly where quantity is not disclosed.
- Independent research. Literature searches for each ingredient, prioritising human evidence relevant to prostate and urinary outcomes.
- Safety considerations. Documented interactions, upper intake levels and population cautions from authoritative sources.
- Purchasing information. Where the product is legitimately sold, stated refund terms, and common points of buyer confusion.
Source hierarchy
| Tier | Source type | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Systematic reviews and meta-analyses (e.g. Cochrane), large randomised controlled trials | Highest — can support or contradict an efficacy statement |
| 2 | Smaller randomised or controlled human trials | Supportive, treated cautiously where samples are small or unreplicated |
| 3 | Authoritative public health bodies: NIH ODS, NCCIH, NIDDK, FDA | Used for nutrient reference values, safety limits and regulatory facts |
| 4 | Observational and mechanistic human studies | Context only |
| 5 | Laboratory and animal studies | Explains why an ingredient was chosen; never used to claim a human effect |
| 6 | Manufacturer and marketing materials | Recorded as product information, never as evidence |
| 7 | Forums, social posts, unverified testimonials | Described as anecdote if mentioned at all; never treated as evidence |
Evidence grading
The evidence bars used across the site describe the strength of human evidence relevant to prostate or urinary outcomes for each ingredient, not overall research volume or ingredient quality:
- Limited — essentially no human outcome data for this use.
- Preliminary — laboratory, animal or very small human studies only.
- Mixed — multiple human trials exist with conflicting or largely negative results.
- Moderate — well-established science, though possibly for a different endpoint than the one being marketed.
Note the deliberate consequence: no ingredient in this formula reaches a “strong” grade for the marketed use, because no such evidence exists.
Formula transparency score
Our transparency score measures disclosure only. It says nothing about product quality, purity or effectiveness, none of which we can assess without laboratory testing. Seven criteria are scored, each worth roughly equal weight:
- Full ingredient list published
- Ingredient forms and standardisation specified
- Per-serving quantities disclosed
- Directions published
- Manufacturer identity named
- Third-party testing results published
- Refund terms clearly stated
A high score means a buyer can find out what they are buying. A low score means they cannot. That is all it means.
Why we publish no star rating
A numeric product rating implies a measured performance. We have not measured performance, and no published trial of this product exists to borrow from. Publishing “4.6/5” would be a fabricated signal, and fabricated ratings are among the most common deceptive practices in supplement affiliate content. For the same reason we publish no Review or AggregateRating structured data.
Limitations of this method
- We rely on publicly available product information, which can be incomplete or change without notice.
- We have not purchased, consumed or laboratory-tested the product.
- Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence; a product with no trials is unproven, not disproven.
- We earn commissions on purchases, a conflict we manage through disclosure and by publishing unfavourable findings, but cannot eliminate.
See also our editorial policy and affiliate disclosure.