Evidence Standards at Evidence First Wellness
This page explains how evidence is selected, interpreted, and cited across Evidence First Wellness.
Wellness information—particularly related to dietary supplements—often appears more definitive than the underlying evidence supports. Claims may be technically accurate, selectively presented, or extrapolated beyond what research can reasonably show. This page exists to make the standards and limitations behind the content on this site explicit.
The goal is transparency, not authority signaling.
What “Evidence-Informed” Means Here
Evidence First Wellness uses an evidence-informed approach rather than a purely evidence-hierarchical or outcome-driven one.
In practice, this means:
acknowledging that evidence is often incomplete
recognizing that biological plausibility and safety matter alongside clinical data
prioritizing conservative interpretation over definitive claims
avoiding false certainty where none exists
Supplement decisions are rarely binary. This site focuses on helping readers understand tradeoffs, not identifying perfect or universally “best” options.
Types of Evidence Considered
When available and appropriate, the following types of evidence may be considered and referenced:
Human clinical trials
Systematic reviews and meta-analysis
Mechanistic and biological plausibility
Safety data and known risk profiles
Regulatory and quality-system context relevant to manufacturing and formulation
Not all evidence types carry the same weight in every context. Their relevance depends on the question being addressed.
How Research Is Interpreted
Studies are interpreted with attention to context, limitations, and applicability.
Factors considered may include:
study design and sample size
population relevance (age, health status, dosing context)
endpoints measured versus claims made
consistency with existing evidence
whether conclusions extend beyond the data presented
Marketing summaries, isolated findings, or abstract-level claims are not treated as sufficient evidence on their own.
Uncertainty is stated explicitly when it exists.
What This Site Avoids
To maintain clarity and credibility, Evidence First Wellness avoids:
cherry-picking studies to support predetermined conclusions
overstating benefits or downplaying risks
extrapolating findings beyond the studied population or dose
ranking supplements based on incomplete or non-comparable evidence
presenting supplementation as risk-free or universally necessary
Where evidence is mixed or limited, that uncertainty is acknowledged rather than resolved artificially
Citation Practices
Sources are cited to support explanation and transparency, not to imply consensus or authority.
In general:
Primary sources are prioritized when feasible
Secondary summaries are used cautiously and contextually
Links are provided where they add clarity or traceability
Citations are used to explain why something is understood a certain way, not to end discussion
Not every statement requires a citation; explanatory content may reflect synthesis across multiple sources or professional experience within regulated quality systems.
Scope and Limitations
Content on Evidence First Wellness is provided for educational purposes only.
This site does not provide medical advice, diagnose conditions, or make individualized recommendations. Decisions about health and supplementation should be made in consultation with qualified healthcare professionals.
Scientific understanding evolves. Content is reviewed and updated as appropriate, but no resource can remain permanently current.
If you’re interested in how these standards are applied in practice, they are discussed more directly in articles focused on supplement evaluation frameworks and research interpretation.