EVIDENCE-BASED SUPPLEMENT SCORING
5.6/10
AVERAGE

Confidence: 48%

Untitled Product 75b89635

Untitled Product 75b89635

B00YMSLT88

View on Amazon →

Decision summary

CONSIDERAVERAGE

Not a strong option overall. The product is materially held back by weaker formulation coherence.

Best for

Buyers comparing price and availability and okay with a middle-of-the-pack option.

Consider another option if

You care a lot about ingredient quality and effectiveness.

Score breakdown

Tap a module to see what it measures. A 0 can reflect missing disclosure, not just a negative result.

Dosage quality

6.4/10

Acceptable dosing, but not standout

Checks whether labeled ingredient amounts fall within clinically studied ranges (not just regulatory minimums). Low/0 can reflect under-dosing or missing amounts (e.g., proprietary blends).

Multi-ingredient formulation analysis

Dose 6.4/10 · Bioavailability 1/10 · Coherence 0/10

Ingredient form quality suggests suboptimal ingredient forms.

This is a multi-ingredient product. The score reflects formulation quality, not efficacy for a specific health goal.

Score summary

Vitamin-b5: dose within clinically studied range (evidence B). The main limitation is that formula coherence is weak: diluted, decorative or overly complex.

Strengths

Vitamin-b5: dose within clinically studied range (evidence B)
Iron: dose within clinically studied range (evidence A)
Iodine: dose within clinically studied range (evidence A)

Weaknesses

Formula coherence is weak: diluted, decorative or overly complex
Vitamin-d: below clinically studied range
Vitamin-e: below clinically studied range

Final verdict

Not a strong option overall. The product is materially held back by weaker formulation coherence.

Ingredient Analysis & Evidence

A closer look at the main ingredients, how they influence the score, and the supporting evidence when available. Tap any ingredient to expand.

✔ Clinically effective dose with strong supporting evidence

Dose is well positioned: Dose is strong and within effective ranges.

Scientific evidence

Meta-analysis

Wald et al. meta-analysis of folic acid and cardiovascular risk

BMJ • 2002

PMID: 15364185.0

RCT

Daly et al. RCT on folate supplementation and homocysteine reduction

New England Journal of Medicine • 1996

PMID: 9521168.0

✔ Clinically effective dose with moderate supporting evidence

Dose is well positioned: Dose is strong and within effective ranges. The declared form is acceptable, but not among the best-absorbed options.

Scientific evidence

Meta-analysis

Pasricha et al. systematic review iron and fatigue in non-anaemic women

BMJ Open • 2012

PMID: 23169929.0

ℹ Clinically effective dose, but evidence is limited

Dose is well positioned: Dose is strong and within effective ranges.

Scientific evidence

narrative_review

Hodges et al. review on pantothenic acid physiology and human deficiency implications

Advances in Nutrition • 2020

✔ Clinically effective dose with strong supporting evidence

Dose is well positioned: Dose is strong and within effective ranges.

Scientific evidence

Systematic review

Zimmermann et al. review on iodine deficiency and thyroid function in human populations

Endocrine Reviews • 2009

PMID: 19357404.0

Cohort

Bath et al. maternal iodine status and offspring cognitive outcomes (ALSPAC cohort)

Lancet • 2013

PMID: 23683674.0

✔ Clinically effective dose with strong supporting evidence

This is a limiting factor: Dose is strong and within effective ranges. The label does not specify the form, so absorption quality cannot be verified.

Scientific evidence

Meta-analysis

Singh & Das Cochrane review zinc for common cold

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews • 2011

PMID: 22553186.0

RCT

Prasad et al. RCT zinc supplementation and testosterone in elderly men

Nutrition • 1996

PMID: 8875519.0

ℹ Dose is within established clinical ranges, but lacks direct studies

This is a limiting factor: Dose is directionally useful, but not a standout strength. The label does not specify the form, so absorption quality cannot be verified.

Clinical dosing guidance

Based on established dosing ranges used in clinical practice.

Min effective: 1.8 mgOptimal: 2.5 mgUpper: 11 mgGrade: B
Untitled Product 75b89635

Untitled Product 75b89635

Warnings & notes

Important label or formulation details that may affect how this product should be interpreted.

Formula design looks less coherent than stronger alternatives

The formulation appears less focused than better-built options.

Note
!

Vitamin D dose looks below clinically effective levels

Declared amount falls below ranges used in human trials.

Warning
!

Vitamin E dose looks below clinically effective levels

Declared amount falls below ranges used in human trials.

Warning

Methodology

Read our methodology overview to understand how SuppScoreLab combines multiple scientific dimensions into one practical score.

View methodology →

This evaluation is based on the product label and declared Supplement Facts available at review time. It does not verify laboratory-tested composition, purity, or batch-level quality. This content is educational and not medical advice. Consult a qualified healthcare professional for personal health decisions. Affiliate disclosure: SuppScoreLab may earn a commission from qualifying Amazon links.

Still comparing options?

See the best Vitamin D3 supplements ranked with the same methodology, or keep exploring the database.