How we research, evaluate, and independently score prostate health supplements. Our standards, methodology, and conflict of interest policy.
Last updated: April 2026
These guidelines govern all content published on prostavivea.com. Our goal is to provide men over 50 with accurate, evidence-based information about prostate health supplements — written independently of commercial influence.
We prioritize supplements that meet the following criteria before investing research time:
Products that do not disclose ingredients, make disease cure claims, or have no verifiable manufacturing standards are not reviewed on this site.
We compile the complete ingredient list and search PubMed and Cochrane Library for peer-reviewed clinical studies on each ingredient. We record evidence quality (systematic review > RCT > observational > in vitro), the doses studied, and clinical outcomes measured.
We assess evidence quality using a modified GRADE framework. Cochrane systematic reviews receive the highest weighting, followed by randomized controlled trials with adequate sample sizes (n>30). We note effect sizes, study durations, and population demographics to assess applicability to the intended supplement users.
We evaluate: Are ingredient dosages disclosed? Is manufacturing verifiably FDA-registered and GMP-certified? Are marketing claims compliant with supplement regulations? Is the refund policy clearly stated and honored? Transparency gaps — particularly undisclosed dosages — are noted explicitly in every review.
We analyze verified customer reviews from multiple sources. We specifically look for: reported timelines to benefits, side effect patterns, customer service experiences, and refund outcomes. We deliberately include negative and mixed reviews — a summary showing only positive outcomes is not representative of real-world results.
We compare products against leading alternatives using factual, publicly available information only. We use neutral descriptive language — not biased checkmarks. We explicitly state that no head-to-head clinical trials exist between compared products.
Each supplement is scored on five criteria, each out of 5 points:
| Criteria | What We Assess | Max Score |
|---|---|---|
| Ingredient Quality | Are ingredients well-chosen, high-quality forms (standardized extracts, chelated minerals)? | 5/5 |
| Clinical Evidence | Strength and quantity of published studies. RCTs weighted higher than observational studies. | 5/5 |
| Value for Money | Cost vs alternatives in same category, considering ingredient quality and quantity. | 5/5 |
| Guarantee | Length and quality of money-back guarantee. 180-day = highest; no guarantee = lowest. | 5/5 |
| Transparency | Disclosed dosages, verified manufacturing, honest claims. Undisclosed dosages capped at 3.5/5. | 5/5 |
This website earns affiliate commissions when readers purchase products through our links. This is disclosed prominently on every page. Our conflict of interest policy:
All PubMed citations are verified before publication. Reviews are updated when: product formulas change, significant new clinical evidence is published, or pricing and guarantee terms change. All review pages display a "Last Updated" date. If you identify a factual error, please contact us — we investigate and correct promptly.
All content includes appropriate disclaimers clarifying that we are not providing medical advice, and that supplements cannot diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent disease. Educational health content is written to be accurate and informative — not alarmist or designed to drive purchases.