Editorial standards

Review Methodology

Our provider ratings use one consistent weighted editorial methodology based on documented service processes and transparency. Ratings do not determine whether a treatment or provider is medically appropriate for an individual.

Editorial scoring

How Vital Review rates providers

Every Pharmacy Review uses the same six weighted editorial criteria. Editors score documented service processes and transparency from 0.0 to 5.0 and record an evidence-based reason. Core calculates the final score automatically; no overall score is published until all six criteria have both a score and supporting reason. Ratings do not determine whether a treatment or provider is medically appropriate for any individual.

6fixed criteria
100%total weight
0–5scoring scale
Requiredwritten evidence
How the final score is calculated Overall rating = the sum of each criterion score multiplied by its fixed weight.

Clinical process & safeguards

25%

Clinician involvement, credential and role transparency, intake and review processes, prescribing safeguards, follow-up processes, monitoring options, and testing policies.

Pricing & transparency

20%

Clarity of starting and ongoing costs, medication pricing, fees, insurance or cash-pay terms, renewals, and material price conditions.

Access & convenience

15%

Ease of intake, geographic availability, consultation options, delivery, and practical barriers to receiving care or service.

Ongoing support

15%

Availability and clarity of clinical or administrative follow-up, communication channels, refill support, and ongoing care assistance.

Medication & fulfillment transparency

15%

Clarity about medications or formulations, prescribing, dispensing pharmacies, shipping, compounding status, and fulfillment responsibilities.

Policies & trust

10%

Clarity and fairness of cancellation, refunds, renewals, privacy, contact information, verification details, and other trust signals.

Scoring scale

Decimal scores are allowed between these anchors when the evidence falls between two levels.

5/5 — Exceptional Excellent verified performance with little meaningful downside for this criterion.
4/5 — Strong Clearly above average with only limited or manageable drawbacks.
3/5 — Adequate Meets a reasonable baseline but has notable limitations or missing clarity.
2/5 — Limited Material weaknesses, restrictions, or transparency gaps affect the experience.
1/5 — Poor Serious weaknesses or insufficient safeguards substantially reduce confidence.
0/5 — Insufficient / unacceptable The criterion is unsupported, unacceptable, or lacks enough verified evidence to merit credit.

Evidence, freshness, and independence

  • Scores must be supported by verified facts and a written evidence/reason for every criterion.
  • Pricing, policies, availability, fulfillment, and other changeable facts should be rechecked and dated in the review sources.
  • The overall score is a weighted editorial rating, not a user rating and not an AggregateRating.
  • Affiliate relationships do not change the fixed criterion weights or the calculation formula. Editorial ratings evaluate documented provider/service information and are not medical advice or individualized treatment recommendations.