Science Corner 14 | Evaluating the Quality of Clinical Research: How TrustScore Considers Clinical Studies
Not all clinical studies are equal.
At SuppCo, we hold a high bar for what qualifies as valid clinical evidence, especially when it comes to determining how products and brands are evaluated by our TrustScore quality rating system.
One of the most impactful and hardest to achieve of the 29 attributes TrustScore measures is “Clinically Studied Product.”
TrustScore gives a product credit for being clinically studied if “a placebo-controlled Randomized Controlled Trial (the gold standard of human clinical studies) has been conducted on this product to support its efficacy.”
We reward products with legitimate clinical backing because science matters. But here is the reality check: many studies that you’ve likely seen advertised simply do not meet our rigorous standards.
Our Standards for Reviewing Studies
For a clinical study to influence a product's TrustScore, it must pass through our demanding evaluation process.
We personally review the contents and methodology of every single study on a commercial supplement based on the following non-negotiable study standards:
Human subjects only: Animal studies, computer simulations, and test-tube experiments do not qualify. Real people, real results, that is our baseline requirement.
Statistical significance: Every study must demonstrate appropriate statistical power with a sufficient number of participants to detect genuine effects. We eliminate the noise of underpowered research that leads to misleading conclusions.
Product-specific validation: The research must test the exact product being sold. Generic nutrient studies do not validate specific products that use those nutrients. Formulations are often different, and the raw ingredient in a nutrient study is often not the same version of the nutrient being used in a supplement. If you are selling a unique vitamin D blend, show us data on that precise formulation.
Targeted effectiveness: Studies must demonstrate effectiveness for the specific health outcomes being marketed. Cognitive enhancement claims require cognitive performance data. Energy claims need energy measurement data. No exceptions.
Realistic timelines: Ingredients with known activation periods, like beta-alanine requiring 30 days for optimal effects, cannot rely on short-term studies claiming immediate benefits. Science cannot bend to marketing timelines.
Appropriate dosing protocols: Research must use doses that align with both product labeling and established effective and safe ranges. Doses 10x higher than the daily serving or above a maximum safe serving may not be accepted. Mega-dosing to force effects does not always count as legitimate validation.
Peer-reviewed publication requirement: This represents our absolute minimum standard. Internal white papers, brand-authored documents, or unpublished data can be valuable, but they do not meet our TrustScore criteria. Peer review ensures scientific credibility and independent validation.
The Evaluation Process That Ensures Excellence
Every piece of clinical evidence submitted undergoes thorough review by our internal research team. Final decisions rest with our Head of Science, ensuring consistent, transparent, and scientifically sound evaluation of all supplement claims.
This systematic approach eliminates bias while maintaining the highest standards for evidence-based product assessment.
Want to see a few products that passed our standards? Check out these studies by Timeline, BodyBio, and Celsius. That’s right, energy drinks can conduct research too!
In next week’s Science Corner, we will dive deeper into these studies and walk you through how we assess published research and what makes it worth trusting.
Ready to Submit Your Research?
If you represent a brand with published research that meets our standards, we want to evaluate your work. Reach out to us directly at trustscore@supp.co with any questions.
Transform your understanding of supplement evaluation by exploring our complete TrustScore methodology. The future of supplement quality depends on raising scientific standards. We are leading that charge, one (well conducted) study at a time.
--
Personal note from Jordan
As SuppCo’s Head of Science, I have zero tolerance for rushed or sloppy research. Mainly because science is the one of the few things that cut through the noise in this space.
Here’s the thing… our evaluation process gets personal for me. When I am building my own stack, I dig into actual studies behind the ingredients I am considering. Same rigorous standards, same thorough vetting process we use for TrustScore. I start with the science first, then let TrustScore help me navigate the rest. This matters to me because I genuinely believe brands who go the extra mile with real research deserve recognition.
We are not just protecting consumers from empty promises, we are rewarding the companies doing the work to prove their products deliver.