Our Evidence Standard
Good formulas begin with good evidence.
Doctor-owned and doctor-developed
Third-party tested
Manufactured in an NSF-certified GMP facility.
Quality matters.
At CodeMD, we don't evaluate an ingredient simply by asking whether research exists. We look at the quality of the evidence, how the ingredient was studied, the dose and form used, the population studied, and whether the findings meaningfully support the role that ingredient is intended to play in a formula.
What we mean by “science-backed”
At CodeMD, science-backed means that the ingredients and doses we select are informed by relevant scientific research and evaluated in the context of their intended use. We place particular emphasis on human clinical research when it is available, while also considering the totality, quality and consistency of the evidence.
Scientific evidence is rarely absolute. Studies can differ in their design, populations, doses, ingredient forms and outcomes. Our job is not simply to find research that supports an ingredient. It is to understand what the research actually shows — and what it does not.
Evidence We Consider
Human Clinical Research
Randomized controlled trials and other well-designed human studies receive particular attention when available.
Reviews & meta-analyses
Useful for understanding the broader body of evidence, while still considering differences among the underlying studies.
Observational research
Can help identify associations and inform biological understanding, but generally cannot establish cause and effect on its own.
Mechanistic & preclinical research
May help explain how an ingredient could work biologically, but we distinguish mechanistic evidence from demonstrated effects in humans.
Historical & traditional use
Can provide useful context but is not treated as equivalent to modern clinical evidence.
We look beyond the headline.
NOT EVERY STUDY ANSWERS THE SAME QUESTION
- Study design - Was the research structured in a way that can meaningfully answer the question being asked?
- Human relevance - Was the ingredient actually studied in people, and in a population relevant to its intended use?
- Dose - Was the amount studied similar to the amount we're considering for the formula?
- Ingredient form - Does the form or preparation studied meaningfully correspond to the ingredient we're using?
- Outcomes - What did researchers actually measure, and are those outcomes relevant to the benefit being discussed?
- Consistency - Does one isolated study stand alone, or is it supported by a broader body of research?
Dose Matters.
The presence of a researched ingredient does not necessarily mean a finished product reflects the research behind it. When evaluating an ingredient, CodeMD considers the quantities used in relevant studies alongside practical factors such as intended use, safety, tolerability, formulation constraints and the role of the ingredient within the complete formula. Where appropriate, we seek doses that meaningfully correspond with the human research supporting the ingredient's intended function.
One study is not the standard.
At CodeMD, we don't evaluate an ingredient simply by asking whether research exists. We look at the quality of the evidence, how the ingredient was studied, the dose and form used, the population studied, and whether the findings meaningfully support the role that ingredient is intended to play in a formula.
Science evolves. So should our understanding of it.
Nutrition and supplement research continues to evolve. Evidence can strengthen, weaken or change as new studies are published. CodeMD periodically reviews the research relevant to our products and may update our formulations, educational content or conclusions as the evidence develops.
Scientific support for an ingredient does not mean that every individual will experience the same result. It does not mean that dietary supplements diagnose, treat, cure or prevent disease. And it does not mean that preliminary, mechanistic or observational findings are equivalent to demonstrated clinical outcomes.
Evidence interpreted through a
Physician’s Lens
“Medicine teaches you to ask more than whether a study exists. You ask how the study was designed, who was studied, what dose was used, what outcome was measured, and whether the conclusion actually matches the data. We bring that same discipline to how we evaluate ingredients at CodeMD.”
Israel Wootton, MD
Founder & President, CodeMD
Our Editorial Policy
FAQ
What does science-backed mean in dietary supplements?
At CodeMD, science-backed means ingredients and doses are selected using relevant scientific research, with particular attention to study quality, human relevance, dose, ingredient form, and the intended use of the finished formula.
What kind of scientific evidence does CodeMD consider?
We consider the full body of relevant evidence, including human clinical trials, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, observational research, and mechanistic or preclinical studies. Human evidence generally carries the greatest weight when it is available and applicable.
Does CodeMD use human clinical research?
Yes. We prioritize relevant human clinical research whenever available, especially when evaluating whether an ingredient, dose, or ingredient form is appropriate for a CodeMD formula.
Why does dose matter in dietary supplements?
An ingredient can be well researched without every amount being equally well supported. We look at the doses used in relevant studies and consider how closely they correspond to the amount used in the finished product.
How does CodeMD evaluate conflicting studies?
We look beyond any single study and consider differences in study design, population, dose, ingredient form, outcomes measured, and overall consistency of the evidence. Conflicting findings are evaluated in the context of the broader research.
Does CodeMD update formulas when research changes?
Yes. Scientific evidence evolves, and CodeMD may periodically review new research and update formulations, educational content, or conclusions when meaningful new evidence warrants it.