How We Score Evidence Quality

We assess evidence on a hierarchy: cell/test-tube studies (lowest confidence), animal models (moderate confidence), human observational data (higher confidence), randomized human trials (highest confidence).

Higher levels of evidence are weighted more heavily in our assessments.

We evaluate: sample size (larger is better), study duration (longer is better), control group (present/absent), randomization (yes/no), blinding (open/single/double), funding source (independent/manufacturer). Each factor affects the confidence we place in the results.

Findings that appear in multiple independent studies from different research groups are more credible than single studies. Consistent findings across populations strengthen conclusions. Conflicting results lower confidence.

We favour studies that report: methods in detail, results clearly, adverse events systematically, funding sources, and conflict-of-interest disclosures. Opaque or incomplete reporting lowers our confidence.

Each peptide review maps the available evidence, assigns a weight to each study based on these criteria, and synthesizes findings. This allows us to distinguish between well-supported claims and speculation.