Research-literacy siteEducational evidence reviews only — not medical advice, not dosing guidance, not a protocol for human or animal use. Medical disclaimer.

PeptideStacks

Citation Standards

What we treat as evidence on PeptideStacks.co.uk, and what we don't.

Source preferences

In descending order of preference, we cite:

  1. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials.
  2. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the relevant species and context.
  3. Other human clinical studies — pharmacokinetic, observational, dose-finding.
  4. Regulatory documents from the MHRA, EMA, FDA, or equivalent.
  5. Clinical trial registries — ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN, EU CTR.
  6. Animal studies in well-described models, where human data is absent.
  7. In vitro / mechanistic studies, clearly labelled as such.
  8. Narrative reviews — used for context, not for primary claims.

Hierarchy of evidence

We follow the standard evidence hierarchy used in evidence-based medicine. Human evidence outweighs animal evidence; animal evidence outweighs in vitro; in vitro outweighs theoretical mechanism. A claim supported only by preclinical or mechanistic evidence is labelled as such.

Animal study limitations

Animal studies offer mechanistic plausibility but do not prove human efficacy or safety. Allometric dose scaling is unreliable for most peptides. Species differ in receptor distribution, immunogenicity, and pharmacokinetics. See our explainer on animal vs human peptide research.

In vitro / cell study limitations

In vitro studies show that an effect is possible at a given concentration. They do not show that an effect occurs in a living organism, at achievable concentrations, with intact pharmacokinetics. See our explainer on in vitro evidence limitations.

How citations are displayed

Citations on PeptideStacks are shown either as inline reference lists or as CitationCard components that surface study type, model, sample size, outcome, main finding, and key limitation. Where available, PubMed PMIDs and DOIs are linked.

What we do not accept as evidence

  • Vendor product pages, brochures, or marketing copy.
  • Forum threads, social media, or anecdotal user reports.
  • Influencer or athlete testimonial, including before/after photos.
  • Press releases not backed by a peer-reviewed publication.
  • Predatory journals or journals not indexed by PubMed/Scopus, unless the result is corroborated elsewhere.
  • “Clinically proven” or “doctor recommended” claims with no citation.

Conflicts and replication

Where a body of evidence is dominated by a single laboratory, we flag it. Where a finding has not been independently replicated, we flag it. Where a study is funded by a party with a commercial interest in the outcome, we note that.