How we create our content

Suplepedia was born from a simple idea: to explain supplements honestly, without overstating what the science says or hiding what it does not know. These are the principles we follow when preparing each entry.

We prioritise the best available evidence

We give priority to randomised controlled trials and systematic reviews over lower-quality studies or anecdotal experience. When we cite a study, we link to the original source whenever possible.

We distinguish strong evidence from weak evidence

Not everything that has been studied is equally proven. We clearly distinguish between what has solid backing and what has only preliminary indications, so that you know how much confidence each claim deserves.

When science has no clear answer, we say so

If the evidence is insufficient or contradictory, we state so openly instead of filling the gap with conjecture. An honest doubt is more useful than an invented certainty.

We declare conflicts of interest

When a relevant study is funded by industry or its authors declare conflicts of interest, we make note of it. The source of funding is a piece of information that helps interpret the results. The selection of studies and the conclusions we publish do not depend on manufacturers, brands, or sponsors.

We do not give personalised medical recommendations

Suplepedia is a source of information, not a medical service. We do not know your history or your circumstances, so we do not offer individual guidance. For any decision about your health, the reference is your doctor or pharmacist.

Use of artificial intelligence

Suplepedia’s content is produced with generative artificial intelligence tools. We state this up front because it affects how it should be read.

These tools are used to find and summarise studies, build an evidence dossier and write each entry. Both the dossier and the entry go through further reviews, carried out with AI under human supervision, that look for incorrect citations, wrongly transcribed data, conclusions stronger than the studies allow, and statements that could be read as medical advice. The English version is also translated with AI, and the illustrations are AI-generated.

Human oversight rests with Suplepedia’s editor, who decides what is published, reviews the entries and oversees the checking of data and sources.

For that reason, although we aim for every claim to be backed by published, cited studies, errors are possible. Nothing we publish replaces the judgement of a doctor or other healthcare professional.

Independence and corrections

Suplepedia is an independent, non-profit project. It carries no advertising, uses no affiliate links and receives no funding from brands or supplement manufacturers.

Errors can be reported to info@suplepedia.com. If an error is confirmed, the entry is corrected.

We correct our content when we find errors that warrant it.