Peptidepedia is an independent reference for peptide compounds and their European regulatory status. This page documents how we decide what to publish, how we grade evidence, and what guardrails we use to stay independent of the industry we cover.
Evidence grading
Every compound entry carries a single evidence grade from S (standard-of-care) down to F (refuted). The grade reflects the quality, independence, and replication of the evidence base — not whether something is biologically plausible.
- S — Multiple high-quality independent RCTs. Authorised by EMA or a national agency. Established mechanism.
- A — ≥2 well-powered RCTs in humans with consistent effect size. Plausible mechanism. No major contradictory data.
- B — One adequately-powered human trial, plus supportive in-vitro / animal data. Effect plausible, not yet replicated.
- C — Pilot or open-label human data only. Or strong preclinical evidence without translation. Caution warranted.
- D — No clinical evidence. User reports, forum data, vendor claims. Mechanism may be speculative or extrapolated.
- F — High-quality trial(s) have failed to demonstrate the claimed effect, or known harms outweigh the marketed benefit.
Source hierarchy
For regulatory status we use, in order of authority:
- EMA & FDA primary documents (assessment reports, scientific opinions, NDA/BLA approvals).
- National medicines agencies of the EU-27 plus MHRA (UK) and Swissmedic (CH) where they diverge from the EU aggregate.
- WADA prohibited-list entries for sports-medicine context.
- Pharmacopoeias (Ph. Eur., USP) for compound identity and purity standards.
For clinical evidence we use PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, EUDRA-CT, and bioRxiv — clearly distinguished by venue, with peer-review status surfaced on every citation.
Conflicts of interest
We do not accept payment from any manufacturer, importer, compounding pharmacy, telehealth clinic, or peptide reseller. We do not run affiliate links, sponsored content, or paid placements.
Editorial review
Peptidepedia is currently a single-editor publication. Every entry is checked against primary literature before publication, and the evidence-grading criteria above are documented publicly so readers can audit the methodology themselves. As the project matures we plan to formalise an external editorial review process; that structure does not exist yet, and we will not claim one until it does.
Corrections
We correct factual errors promptly and publicly. If you spot one, email press@peptidepedia.nl with the URL and the correction; we acknowledge corrections in a public log, dated and signed.
Languages
We publish in Dutch (primary), English, German, French, Spanish, and Italian. Translations are produced via a reviewed Gemini pipeline, then proofed by a native-language editor before publication. Regulatory terminology is normalised to the agency's own preferred local form.