Editorial standards

Our drug, supplement, interaction and condition content is researched from public, freely-readable government, institutional and professional-society sources: the U.S. FDA (drug labels via DailyMed and the openFDA databases), the NIH and its institutes (NIDDK, NHLBI, NIMH, NIAMS, NEI, NINDS), the NIH Office of Dietary Supplements, the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH), the CDC, MedlinePlus, the UK's NHS and NICE, and named clinical-practice guidelines from medical societies (for example the AHA/ACC, ADA, AAD, ACR, AAO, AAAAI/ACAAI, ACOG and AGA). We use the factsfrom these sources, rewritten in our own words — never their copyrighted prose, tables or figures — and every page links the specific sources it's drawn from so you can check the original.

We write in our own words and mirror each source's level of certainty. When the evidence is weak, we say so (“evidence is limited,” “not enough evidence”). We do not invent benefits, interactions, dosages, or safety clearances, and we do not present a supplement as a treatment for a disease. Dietary supplements are not FDA-approved to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent disease, and we say that plainly.

Each drug/supplement monograph, each “can you take X with Y” interaction answer, and each condition clinical overview goes through a two-step process: a research pass that compiles the facts from the authoritative sources, then a separate, adversarial fact-check that re-opens every cited source, confirms it actually states each claim attributed to it, drops or re-attributes anything the source doesn't support, and rejects fabricated statistics, dosing specifics, “cure” overreach, or broken citations. For our condition overviews the standard-of-care summary is tied to a named medical-society guideline wherever one exists. Anything that can't be grounded in a real, resolving source is not published.

Where we publish a rating, it's computed from objective, source-backed signals (such as FDA recall history) — see our rating methodology. Advertisers and affiliate partners never influence a score or a verdict, and sponsored or affiliate links are clearly disclosed.

When a page has been reviewed by a credentialed clinician, we show their name, credentials, and the review date. We never display a “medically reviewed by” line for a review that didn't happen. Pages without a named reviewer are editorial summaries of the cited authorities — accurate, but a summary, not a personal medical opinion.

pharmaranks is an independent ratings and information publisher — not a pharmacy, manufacturer, or seller, and not owned by one. We make money through clearly-labeled advertising, affiliate links, and sponsored placements, plus opt-in lead generation. That revenue keeps the site free; it never buys a better score or verdict. How a given page can earn money is always disclosed, and our ratings are computed from objective, source-backed signals independent of any commercial relationship.

We want every clinical fact to be right. If you spot an error — an outdated label, a wrong interaction, a broken source — please tell us, and we'll review it against the original authority and correct or remove it promptly. Material corrections are reflected in the page's “updated” date.

Nothing here is a substitute for your doctor or pharmacist. Interactions, doses and safety depend on your health and other medicines — always confirm with a professional before acting. Found an error? Tell us and we'll correct it.