The six criteria
Every reviewed provider is scored on these six dimensions. Each dimension is worth up to 10 points, totaling 60. The reported score is the average expressed on a 0–10 scale. Sub-criteria are listed below each dimension.
1 · Pricing transparency (10 pts)
- Total monthly cost shown before checkout (medication + consultation + shipping)
- No price step-up at higher dose titrations
- Cancellation terms disclosed up front
- No required subscription lock-in to access posted prices
- Verified by editor making a checkout-stage observation, not from marketing pages
2 · Pharmacy sourcing (10 pts)
- Pharmacy partner named (not just "FDA-registered facility")
- Pharmacy type disclosed (503A, 503B, or both)
- State licensure verifiable
- Certificate of Analysis available on request
- USP <797> or cGMP standards disclosed where applicable
- Bonus: dual 503A/503B sourcing (resilience to single-supplier risk)
3 · Clinical oversight (10 pts)
- Licensed prescriber required before first dispensing
- Intake exceeds checkbox-only (real medical history collected)
- Board-certified MD/DO available, not nurse-practitioner-only
- Titration protocol explicit and patient-accessible
- Clinician access path for side-effect management
- Named medical director or clinical lead
4 · Regulatory status (10 pts)
- Operates within FD&C Act compounding pathways
- No active FDA warning letters against the provider or its disclosed pharmacy
- Clear disclosure that compounded medications are not FDA-approved
- State licensure consistent with patient location
- LegitScript or equivalent third-party verification where applicable
5 · Patient experience (10 pts)
- Verified patient reviews from confirmed treatment histories (weighted 3× over unverified)
- Reported retention/persistence at month 6 and month 12
- Side-effect management infrastructure
- Shipping reliability and delivery time
- Complaint resolution and refund track record
6 · Evidence quality (10 pts)
- Provider's medical content cites peer-reviewed trials, not blog posts
- Weight-loss claims correspond to published trial outcomes (STEP, SURMOUNT, etc.)
- Off-label uses transparently labeled
- Medical content reviewed by a licensed clinician
- No exaggerated mechanism claims
Source hierarchy
When sources disagree, we follow this priority order:
| Tier | Source type | Examples |
|---|---|---|
| Tier 1 | Primary regulatory and clinical evidence | FDA drug labels, peer-reviewed clinical trials (STEP, SURMOUNT, SELECT, FLOW), FDA warning letters, federal court records |
| Tier 2 | Verifiable institutional records | State pharmacy board licensure, NPI registry, LegitScript verification, USP standards |
| Tier 3 | Provider-published material | Provider pricing pages, terms of service, posted clinical protocols (verified at checkout where possible) |
| Tier 4 | Aggregated patient experience | Trustpilot, Better Business Bureau, verified treatment-history reviews, BBB complaint data |
| Excluded | Non-citable sources | Social-media testimonials without treatment verification, Reddit threads (used for hypothesis-generation only), affiliate sites with unpublished methodology, the providers' own marketing emails |
Verification cadence
- Weekly: Pricing re-verified at checkout; FDA enforcement actions monitored.
- Monthly: Pharmacy sourcing claims re-checked against licensure data.
- Quarterly: Full methodology re-applied to every ranked provider.
- Triggered: An FDA letter, regulatory action, ownership change, or pricing change immediately triggers a re-score.
Conflict of interest & independence
GLPOneReview earns referral compensation when readers click through to listed providers. This is a lead-generation model, not advertising. Two rules govern how this compensation interacts with editorial:
- Providers cannot pay for ranking position. The rubric is applied identically to every reviewed provider, including those that pay no referral fee.
- Editors making scoring decisions are not the editors negotiating referral relationships. Scoring is performed against published criteria with documented rationale.
Where a financial relationship exists with a provider being ranked, we disclose it on the page where the recommendation appears (footer disclosure on every provider review and the homepage). See our full independence policy.
Corrections process
If you believe a fact on this site is wrong, email editor@glponereview.com with:
- The URL of the page
- The specific claim you're disputing
- The verifiable source that supports the correction
We acknowledge correction requests within 3 business days. Verified factual errors are corrected within 7 days, with a dated correction note appended to the page. Substantive corrections (changes that alter scoring or ranking) trigger a notification to past readers via the newsletter.
Editorial team
Provider scoring, pricing verification, and content writing are performed by the GLPOneReview editorial team. Medical content is reviewed for clinical accuracy by Adam Kennah, M.D., a board-certified physician. Editorial bios, credentials, and contact information are available on the team page.
What we do not do
- We do not accept payment in exchange for favorable scoring.
- We do not allow providers to review their entries before publication.
- We do not provide medical advice. This site is informational; treatment decisions belong with a licensed clinician.
- We do not reproduce manufacturer marketing language without verification.
- We do not list providers we cannot verify operate within current compounding pathways.
Six criteria · 60 points · weekly verification · published source hierarchy · MD-reviewed medical content · documented corrections process. The methodology is fixed. The data updates.