Methodology

NADFaq publishes content for a sophisticated audience that demands traceable sourcing and honest uncertainty. This page documents the framework that every reference article, research summary, and benefit review is built on.

Evidence grading

Every benefit claim on NADFaq is tagged with one of four evidence levels. These reflect human trial quality, sample size, reproducibility, and mechanistic plausibility.

• Strong. Multiple well-conducted randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in humans with consistent effects and plausible mechanism.
• Moderate. At least one well-conducted human RCT with supportive mechanistic work in humans or animal models.
• Emerging. Early-phase human trials (Phase 1/2), open label or small cohort, with plausible mechanism. Direction is suggestive but not conclusive.
• Preclinical. Supported by rodent, organoid, or cell work only. No human data yet, or only observational correlations.

Citation requirements

Every empirical claim on NADFaq must cite at least one peer-reviewed source. Primary research (original clinical trials) is preferred to secondary sources (reviews). We include PubMed IDs (PMIDs) and DOIs where available so readers can navigate directly to the original paper.

When we summarize secondary sources, we cite the review and also the two or three most relevant primary studies it covers — so readers can assess whether the review is representative.

Editorial review

Every piece is drafted by a named contributor and reviewed by at least one additional contributor with relevant credentials (PhD, MD, PharmD, or equivalent research experience) before publication. Reviewers specifically check:

1. Are the cited studies accurately represented?
2. Is the strength of evidence appropriately labeled?
3. Are confounders and limitations disclosed?
4. Is the language honest about uncertainty?

Updates and corrections

NAD+ research is moving quickly. Every article carries a “last reviewed” date and is re-reviewed at minimum annually. If new research changes our assessment, we update the piece inline and note the change at the bottom of the article. For major reversals, we publish a dedicated blog post explaining the shift and linking to the updated reference.

Spot a factual error? Email editorial@nadfaq.com. We credit corrections by name when the correction is accepted.

What we exclude

We do not cite, summarize, or link to:

• Non-peer-reviewed preprints as primary evidence (we may note them as emerging signal with explicit labeling).
• Supplement-company commissioned studies that have not been independently reproduced.
• Testimonials, anecdotal reports, or survey data as evidence for clinical claims.