Vertigo Research HQ

Research and Comparison Methodology

This methodology explains how Vertigo Research HQ turns a real reader decision into a researched, reviewed, and technically verified article.

How topics are selected

A proposed page must pass two gates before research begins:

1. Exceptional usefulness: the page must materially improve a reader's ability to understand a risk, compare evidence, or make a decision.
2. Near-decision relevance: the reader must be close to a meaningful care, treatment, or purchase decision.

We do not publish a broad topic merely because it has search volume. We also reject commercially attractive topics when the likely page would be thin, duplicative, manipulative, or unsafe.

How reader needs are established

The research brief identifies the reader's situation, question, likely level of knowledge, competing choices, foreseeable misunderstanding, and safest useful next step.

Depending on the topic, that work may use search-result analysis, public search-demand data, first-party campaign or performance data, reader questions, product pages, labels, regulatory records, and gaps in existing coverage. Commercial data can reveal what people are trying to buy; it cannot prove that the product works or determine our conclusion.

How sources are selected

The source plan is built before the article is drafted. We prefer the most direct and authoritative source suitable for each claim.

Clinical and scientific sources

Depending on the question, sources may include clinical guidelines, systematic reviews, evidence reports, randomized trials, observational research, safety reports, and authoritative medical references.

Evidence is assessed for the population, condition, intervention, comparator, outcome, dose, duration, study design, limitations, and relevance to the exact statement. Evidence about one cause of dizziness is not generalized to every cause.

Regulatory and public-health sources

Medical and supplement rules are checked against current material from agencies such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and Federal Trade Commission. Product or advertising language is not accepted as a regulatory conclusion merely because a seller uses it.

Product and merchant sources

Official labels, ingredient lists, certificates, seller terms, shipping and return policies, and manufacturer statements may establish what a seller represents or promises. They do not independently establish clinical effectiveness.

Secondary journalism, professional commentary, and commercial databases may help locate an issue or explain context, but material claims are traced to a stronger source whenever one is available.

How evidence is translated

The article record separates four things:

• what the evidence directly supports;
• what can reasonably be inferred;
• what remains uncertain, indirect, or unstudied; and
• what is only a product, testimonial, or marketing claim.

The strength and wording of a conclusion must match the evidence. We use narrower language when studies are small, indirect, inconsistent, short, or based on a population unlike the intended reader.

Absence of evidence is not automatically evidence of no effect. It is, however, a reason not to make a confident effectiveness claim.

How supplement claims are evaluated

Supplement research is condition-specific and formula-specific. We do not assume that evidence for an ingredient establishes that a finished product works.

Where information is available, the review considers:

• the exact ingredient and form;
• dose and dosing schedule;
• the population and condition studied;
• whether the study measured a meaningful outcome;
• known adverse effects, contraindications, and interaction concerns;
• whether the finished product has independent testing or only ingredient-level evidence;
• label completeness and proprietary blends;
• seller identity and contact information;
• purchase, subscription, shipping, and return terms; and
• whether advertising language outruns the cited evidence.

Testimonials, star ratings, search rank, conversion rate, and low refund volume may describe buyer behavior. They do not establish medical benefit or safety.

How comparisons are structured

A comparison uses criteria chosen before commercial outcomes are known. The criteria must reflect the reader's decision and may include evidence fit, safety, dose transparency, testing, practical burden, total cost, seller transparency, and purchase protections.

We disclose missing information rather than silently awarding a favorable assumption. A merchant can correct a factual record but cannot purchase inclusion, remove supported criticism, or approve our conclusion.

How commercial eligibility is decided

Topic selection and commercial eligibility are separate decisions. A useful page may remain non-commercial. A page can show a referral only when:

• the page is exceptionally useful and near a real purchase decision;
• the evidence and safety framing are complete;
• the specific offer is approved and relevant;
• the disclosure appears before the referral action; and
• the article, experiment, and merchant configuration all pass validation.

The article references an experiment identifier, not a hardcoded merchant. The experiment system cannot override an ineligible page.

Review and publication record

Each article has a review package covering the applicable lanes:

1. audience and decision intent;
2. current search and information gap;
3. source selection and claim reconciliation;
4. clinical evidence and safety;
5. supplement, FDA, FTC, and disclosure requirements;
6. commercial relevance and offer eligibility;
7. line editing and reader usability;
8. accessibility and responsive presentation; and
9. metadata, links, referral behavior, and browser checks.

Medical review is required when the article materially interprets diagnosis, treatment, dosage, interactions, prognosis, red flags, or clinical evidence. Reviewers are named only after their work and credentials are verified.

Drafts remain out of search indexes and the sitemap. Referral controls remain off until every required review is complete and publication is explicitly authorized.

Updates and uncertainty

Sources, labels, evidence, merchant terms, and regulations can change. Material revisions are checked against the article record and applicable review lanes. A page may be corrected, returned to review, removed from referrals, set to noindex, or withdrawn when its support is no longer adequate.

Questions about this methodology can be sent to [email protected] with the relevant page and claim.