Skip to main content
Independent peptide information No peptide sales Sources shown

Editorial method

How we rate peptide evidence

We assess one precise claim at a time. Study design, population, directness, consistency and risk of bias shape the verdict. A product, seller or laboratory never receives one global score.

Our evidence rating method separates what a label claims, what a certificate reports, what a laboratory measured and what scientific research supports. Editors define the claim, assess the evidence that addresses it, state a scoped verdict and list the questions the evidence cannot answer.

This page governs every record in the evidence library and every evidence finding in a compound profile. Method changes enter the public change log.

Which evidence layer answers the question?

Each layer has a different subject. The label concerns a seller's claim. The certificate concerns a described sample. An independent test concerns the attributes measured in the submitted sample. Scientific evidence concerns outcomes in a defined population.

We do not allow one layer to substitute for another. A paper cannot identify a vial. A purity result cannot show clinical benefit. A regulatory status does not decide whether a claim is effective.

Evidence layersQuestion answered
01

Label claim

What does the seller, product page or packaging claim?

02

Certificate

What does the document report about the sample it describes?

03

Independent test

What did the laboratory measure, by which method, on which sample?

04

Scientific evidence

What outcome does research support for this population, route and period?

The unit we rate is a precise claim

We frame a claim around a compound or intervention, a population, an outcome and the conditions of use reported in the evidence. Route and follow-up period become part of the claim when they could change the conclusion.

This prevents evidence from travelling beyond its scope. Topical evidence does not support an injectable claim. A result in animals does not establish a human outcome. Evidence for an authorised medicine does not establish the identity or quality of a research-labelled vial.

Example of a rateable claim

“Compound X improved a defined outcome in adults with condition Y over the study period.” The record would identify the exact intervention, route, comparator, outcome and limits. “Compound X supports recovery” remains too broad for a verdict.

Which factors shape an evidence verdict?

Editors examine five inputs for each claim. No input works as a mechanical score. A serious limitation can outweigh several strengths, and the reasons for the judgement appear beside the verdict.

InputQuestion we askWhy it can change the verdict
Study designCan the design answer the causal or descriptive question being asked?Random allocation, suitable comparison groups, blinding and follow-up can reduce some sources of error. Design labels alone do not guarantee quality.
Population and routeDo the participants and route match the claim?Evidence can be indirect when the study population, formulation or administration route differs from the marketed claim.
DirectnessDid the study measure the claimed outcome?Biomarkers and intermediate outcomes may not establish a benefit that a person can feel or that changes health.
ConsistencyDo suitable studies point in the same direction?Conflicting findings require explanation. Differences in dose, population, route or outcome may account for some inconsistency.
Risk of biasCould study conduct, reporting or conflicts distort the result?Selective reporting, attrition, weak controls and financial interests can reduce confidence in the finding.

How do evidence labels differ from verdicts?

The evidence basis describes the type and relevance of the research found. The verdict states what that body of evidence supports for the precise claim. We show both fields because “human evidence exists” does not tell you whether the study supports the claim.

Evidence basis

Our shape system shows what kind of evidence underpins the record.

  • Relevant human evidenceDirect human evidence addresses the claim.
  • Limited human evidenceHuman evidence exists with material limitations.
  • Preclinical evidence onlyAnimal or laboratory work, without reliable human evidence for the claim.
  • No reliable evidence identifiedThe search found no suitable evidence for the defined claim.
  • Evidence unclear or conflictingFindings conflict or do not answer the claim cleanly.

Claim verdict

The written verdict reports what the evidence supports within the stated scope.

  • SupportedReliable evidence supports the precise claim within the defined scope.
  • MixedReliable findings differ by study, population or outcome.
  • UnsupportedReliable evidence does not support the precise claim.
  • InsufficientAvailable evidence cannot support or refute the precise claim.
Red is not part of the evidence scale.

We reserve oxide red for a consequential safety warning. No evidence identified means that a question remains unanswered. It does not mean the compound has been shown to cause harm.

Why we rejected a single peptide score

During the design of this publication, we chose claim-level findings instead of an overall score. A peptide can have different evidence for different outcomes, routes and populations. Compressing those findings into “7 out of 10” would hide the scope and imply a level of precision the evidence does not support.

The same rule applies to products, sellers and laboratories. We report the attribute and evidence examined. We do not rank a seller or turn a single result into a quality score.

A conclusion must remain inspectable

Each verdict carries its claim wording, evidence basis, qualifier, sources, review date and unknowns. A reader should be able to disagree with our judgement and still see how we reached it.

See the verdict fields in the evidence library

How do we select sources?

We start with the source closest to the question. Clinical trial registries and peer-reviewed study reports support research-status and outcome claims. UK legislation, the MHRA products database and dated regulator guidance support UK status statements. The current WADA Prohibited List supports sport-status statements.

Seller pages can show what a seller claims. They do not serve as evidence that the claim is true, that the product contains the stated substance or that the batch is safe.

How do we handle laboratory results?

We identify the measurand, method, sample description, laboratory, date and stated uncertainty where available. We do not infer an unmeasured attribute. The detailed analytical rule sits on the guide explaining why a result cannot establish an unmeasured attribute.

Who applies the method?

Authors gather and structure the evidence. Reviewers check the parts that fall within their scientific, regulatory or laboratory remit. A visible review line appears only after that person has completed the review and their identity and credentials have been verified.

The people who apply this method and the scope of each role appear on the governance page. The incentives behind the method appear separately so readers can assess independence.

What makes a verdict change?

New human evidence, a corrected study report, a regulatory change, a retraction or a discovered error can change a record. We update the review date, explain the reason and add the change to the public log. Cosmetic edits do not receive a substantive change entry.

Check the corrections, versions and change log

What this method cannot establish

An editorial review cannot identify the contents of a specific vial, replace a validated laboratory method, diagnose a condition or provide personalised medical advice. It can show which claim was assessed, which evidence was found, how directly it applies and where uncertainty remains.

Publication gate

No evidence record should be published until its sources, author, applicable review and conflicts declaration are complete. Draft status does not count as review.

Editorial experience

From our work: how we checked this page

For topical-map item C-004, How we rate peptide evidence was checked as a distinct editorial task, not treated as a generic peptide page. We reviewed 0 unique external sources and 5 internal destinations in the page, then checked that the opening answer, headings, source descriptions and linked next steps stayed within the same claim boundary. The count records links in the published page and is not a claim that every source carries equal evidential weight.

Eleni Kiromitis checked study design, biomedical evidence, evidence directness and laboratory context. Dr Stavroula Nikitopoulou checked clinical claims, adverse effects, contraindications, red flags and patient-facing safety wording. Each reviewer stayed within the remit published on the governance page. Yianni Kiromitis retained responsibility for source verification, editorial decisions and correction management.

We did not use patient experience, a personal treatment outcome, seller testimony or an assumed product identity to support this page. The publication did not independently test a vial for this review. Where a page refers to a laboratory result, that result applies only to the named sample, method and attribute. We kept uncertainty beside the conclusion, recorded which source supports each material claim, and checked that the visible review date matches the publication record. A new controlled study, regulator update, corrected source, analytical report or credible safety signal can trigger reassessment through the public correction route.

Authorship

Written and edited by Yianni Kiromitis

Yianni Kiromitis, BSc (Hons) Radiography, PgC Medical Ultrasound (General Imaging), HCPC RA38415, is Lead Author, Publisher and Managing Editor. He is responsible for research, source verification, editorial decisions and correction management.

Scientific and clinical review

Scientific review completed by Eleni Kiromitis, BSc (Hons) Biomedical Science. Clinical review completed by Dr Stavroula Nikitopoulou, GMC 6092503. Both reviewers completed their assigned review on 10 August 2026.

See the full author biographies and review remits