How We Research | The Inside Report

This page describes the process we follow when we pick a health topic and decide to look into it. We apply the same approach to every category we cover, regardless of whether we end up with affiliate links to providers in that category.

Step 1 — Read the published clinical evidence

Sources we prioritize: peer-reviewed publications indexed in PubMed (NEJM, JAMA, The Lancet, Nature Medicine, Endocrine Reviews, Cell Metabolism, etc.), FDA prescribing information, and clinical practice guidelines from major medical societies (ADA, Endocrine Society, AHA, etc.).

For each treatment we discuss, we identify the pivotal trials — the large, well-designed studies that established efficacy and safety. We read the full text where available, not just abstracts. We note sample sizes, primary outcomes, secondary outcomes, adverse events, discontinuation rates, and follow-up duration.

What we deliberately exclude

We don't give weight to: company press releases, conference abstracts that haven't been peer-reviewed, animal-only studies in domains where human evidence already exists, marketing-funded "studies" published in non-indexed venues, or testimonials.

Step 2 — Identify the products on the market

We identify the providers commercializing the treatment in the U.S. market through public sources, industry directories, and direct review of company websites.

Step 3 — Verify operational details directly

For each provider, we verify the following directly from the provider's own website on the date of publication: pricing structure, plan options, state availability, refund policy, cancellation policy, named medical team, named compounding pharmacies (where applicable), and certifications claimed.

The "Pricing Verified" date at the top of each article reflects the day this verification was performed. Pricing changes; the date tells the reader when to consider our published prices reliable.

Step 4 — Read the public complaint record

We read patient reviews on Trustpilot, ConsumerAffairs, and the Better Business Bureau. We give particular weight to detailed, specific negative reviews — vague praise is easy to produce; detailed complaints describing specific products, dates, and dollar amounts are harder to fabricate.

When a pattern of similar complaints appears across multiple platforms — for example, repeated descriptions of shipping delays, dosing discrepancies, or subscription enrollment issues — we describe that pattern in the published article, regardless of any affiliate relationship.

Step 5 — Identify contraindications and inappropriate populations

For each treatment, we identify the populations for whom medical specialists advise against use, drawn from FDA prescribing information and clinical practice guidelines. This becomes the "Who [treatment] may not be appropriate for" section in each article.

We treat this section as the most important part of any article. Health products are appropriate for some people and explicitly not for others, and the marketing for these products tends to obscure that distinction. We make a point of restoring it.

Step 6 — Share what we found

With the evidence read and the providers verified, we write the article. It describes what we found that holds up, what doesn't, which providers we found worth including and why, and which patient populations should not consider the treatment regardless of provider.

We don't rank providers by score. We don't produce a "winner." We describe what each provider does well and what readers should know about each — and we leave the decision about which provider, if any, is appropriate for a given person to that person and their licensed clinician.

Step 7 — Sources and disclosures

Every article ends with a complete list of sources, with PMIDs and DOIs where applicable. The affiliate disclosure appears at the top of the article — not in the footer — and is also detailed in full on a dedicated disclosure page.

What this approach does not do

This approach does not replace clinical judgment. We can describe what the published evidence shows about a category of treatment. We cannot tell any individual reader whether a specific treatment is appropriate for them. That requires a clinical evaluation by a licensed provider who knows the patient's history.

It also does not produce certainty. The medical literature evolves; new trials produce new findings; products change. We update articles when material new evidence becomes available, and we date our content visibly so readers can judge for themselves whether what we shared remains current.

Corrections

If you find a factual error in any article — a price that has changed, an operational detail we got wrong, a clinical claim we mis-stated — please email hello@inreportreview.com. We correct errors promptly and note substantive corrections publicly.

The process we follow when we look into a topic