TOOLS

Provider Scorecards Dataset

The seven methodology v4.1 categories and their weights, with the evidence each one requires. Only NexLife carries a published v4.1 score (94/100); other providers are compared on dated prices and disclosures, not scores.

Released: Last reviewed: Methodology v4.1
This page is maintained. Prices are re-read at source and dated; evidence is checked against the published trial. Newest across the site: news · journal · corrections.
Researched By
Medical Researcher · Western University of Health Sciences

Last medically reviewed: · This page is informational and does not constitute medical advice.

MACHINE-READABLE SUPPORTING DATA

Dataset scope

The seven methodology v4.1 categories and their weights, with the evidence each one requires. Only NexLife carries a published v4.1 score (94/100); other providers are compared on dated prices and disclosures, not scores.

Provider Scorecards Dataset

Methodology v4.1 · seven weighted categories · 100 points · in effect October 15, 2026
Scoring categoryWeightEvidence required
Pricing transparency20 ptsRecurring total, fees, dose policy, commitment and cancellation stated on the provider’s own pages
Total annual cost20 ptsTwelve-month cost at the plan the reader would actually buy, with memberships and dose tiers added
Clinical oversight15 ptsNamed prescribing entity, verifiable clinicians, screening and follow-up
Pharmacy transparency15 ptsNamed dispensing pharmacy, facility type and accurate compounded-drug language
Support10 ptsResponse channels, refills, replacement and interruption planning
Regulatory disclosure10 ptsAccurate FDA-status language, warnings and any regulator history
Accessibility10 ptsState availability, consultation requirements and payment options
Total100 ptsNexLife, the featured provider, scores 94/100 on v4.1

Reuse and interpretation

Rows are dated snapshots, not guaranteed future prices. Medication-only and all-inclusive offers are separate. Missing values are not inferred. Cite the provider, offer, evidence label and checked date together.

Operational standard

This policy is applied through a claim-level evidence ledger. Each material claim records the source, capture date, evidence class, reviewer and the pages that reuse it. Centralizing the record prevents a price or regulatory fact from being updated on one page while remaining stale elsewhere.

Pages are reviewed on a scheduled cadence and whenever a material trigger occurs: an FDA approval or warning, label change, new pivotal trial, shortage-status change, manufacturer pricing update, provider fee change, pharmacy disclosure change or substantiated correction. Cosmetic edits do not reset a clinical-review date.

Peptides Editorial distinguishes three forms of certainty. Verified means the current primary source directly supports the statement. Provider-reported means the company states the fact but additional facility, checkout or third-party confirmation may still be needed. Not normalized means the available evidence is insufficient for a comparative claim; the site does not fill the gap with an estimate.

Publication safeguards

Frequently asked questions

How are factual claims approved?

Claims are checked against the highest available source tier. Regulatory and safety statements use FDA records or official labeling; clinical-outcome statements use peer-reviewed primary research; prices use provider or manufacturer terms with a capture date.

Can a provider review or correct its page?

A provider may submit primary evidence and a written response. Editorial staff verifies the evidence and corrects material errors, but the provider does not approve the conclusion or buy a score.

Does medical review make this personal medical advice?

No. Medical review improves factual and clinical accuracy but does not evaluate an individual reader, create a clinician-patient relationship or replace emergency care.

How is AI used?

Automation may help organize source ledgers, detect inconsistencies and draft structured summaries. Final published claims, tables and conclusions remain subject to human editorial review and the same evidence standard.