How we research, write, and review
Every page on Peptide Handbook is written, reviewed, and updated against the same set of editorial principles. This document describes them in full, so any reader can audit our process.
Sourcing
We prefer phase-3 RCT data over phase-2, and phase-2 over phase-1 or preclinical. Where preclinical or mechanistic data is the only available evidence, we say so explicitly and lower the confidence rating accordingly. We do not cite blog posts, vendor marketing material, podcast claims, or social-media threads as primary evidence.
UK regulatory information comes from MHRA published documents, NICE technology appraisals, the British National Formulary, and primary legislation (Human Medicines Regulations 2012, Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021). All citations include sufficient detail to locate the source independently.
Confidence ratings
Each peptide profile carries a confidence rating: High, Medium, or Low. These map to evidence quality:
- High — multiple completed phase-3 RCTs with consistent effect-size signals; regulatory approval in major markets; replicated findings.
- Medium — phase-2 data, single phase-3 trial, or strong mechanistic evidence with limited clinical replication.
- Low — preclinical only, single small clinical study, or evidence from a single research group without independent replication.
Update cadence
Every peptide profile is reviewed at least quarterly. Where new phase-3 data publishes, we update the relevant page within 30 days. Updates are timestamped. Significant changes (rating revisions, new confidence levels, new safety signals) trigger a documented changelog on the page.
Conflict of interest
Peptide Handbook does not sell peptides, supplements, or related products. We do not earn affiliate commission on peptide purchases, clinic referrals, or prescription dispensing. We do not accept editorial funding, sponsorship, or content input from peptide manufacturers, distributors, vendors, or clinics.
All editorial-team members' clinical practice affiliations are disclosed on their byline. Where any potential conflict exists for a specific topic, the affected reviewer recuses from that article.
Corrections
We welcome corrections. Email corrections@peptidehandbook.co.uk with the page URL, the specific claim, and the contradicting source. Corrections will be applied with a public changelog entry and acknowledgement.