FactoWiki Research Team
The FactoWiki Research Team is the role responsible for reading and summarising published scientific literature on supplement ingredients. It writes evidence reviews, ingredient guides and deep-dive articles, which are reviewed for publication by the FactoWiki Editorial Team. It does not hold or claim medical credentials.
On this page
What the Research Team does
- Searches the literature for human evidence on ingredients used in supplements.
- Records who was studied, the dose and form, the duration, the results and the limitations.
- Writes evidence reviews, ingredient guides and dose, form and interaction deep-dives.
- Supplies the evidence sections used in product reviews and Best guides.
- Flags citations that cannot be verified so they can be checked or removed.
How sources are selected
- Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials, including Cochrane reviews.
- Individual randomised, placebo-controlled human trials indexed in PubMed.
- Guidance and fact sheets from NIH (including the Office of Dietary Supplements), NCCIH and the FDA.
- Observational human studies, identified as such.
- Animal and laboratory studies, used only to explain a proposed mechanism and never as evidence of benefit in people.
Where reviews disagree, pages describe the disagreement and possible reasons — trial size, funding source, extract type, population — rather than selecting the most positive result. Industry funding is noted where it is apparent.
Ingredient evidence versus product evidence
Every evidence page keeps three questions apart: is there human evidence for the ingredient; was a benefit seen at a particular dose and form; and has a finished commercial product been tested. A result for one of these is not treated as an answer to the others.
How updates are handled
Evidence pages are revised when important new systematic reviews, large trials or regulatory safety information appear, or when a reader identifies an error. Dose figures are labelled as study doses, recommended intakes, upper limits, regulatory figures or commercial amounts so that updates do not blur these categories.
How corrections are handled
If a study is misdescribed or a citation does not match its source, the text is corrected or the citation removed, and the page’s updated date is changed. Report issues via the contact page.
How affiliate relationships work
Research Team pages — evidence reviews, ingredient guides and deep-dives — contain no affiliate purchase links. Where they mention products at all, they link to FactoWiki’s own desk-based reviews, not to sellers.
How conflicts of interest are avoided
- Evidence summaries are written from the literature, not from product marketing.
- Evidence pages carry no commercial links.
- Commercial relationships do not change how a study is described or which studies are included.
- AI tools may assist with organising research, drafting and editing, but are not treated as a source of evidence; claims are checked against the cited literature.
Desk-based or first-hand?
Research Team work is desk-based literature review. The team does not conduct clinical trials, laboratory analysis or product testing.
What FactoWiki does not claim
- That any page has been medically reviewed. No named doctor, pharmacist, dietitian or other clinician reviews FactoWiki content, and neither team label is a medical credential.
- That any supplement is “clinically proven” because its ingredients have been studied.
- That products were purchased, used or laboratory-tested, unless a page explicitly says so and describes what was done.
- Customer ratings, testimonials or before-and-after results that cannot be verified.
- That our content diagnoses, treats or replaces advice from a qualified professional who knows your circumstances.
- Qualifications, job titles or experience for people who do not exist. FactoWiki uses role-based attribution rather than invented author profiles.