This page describes how content on GLP1Hub is produced, sourced and reviewed. It exists so you can judge whether to trust what you read here, rather than taking our word for it.
Where our information comes from
We work from primary sources: FDA prescribing information, published trial results, federal statute and regulation, CMS and state programme documents, and clinical guidance from professional bodies.
We do not build articles from other health websites. Where we cite a figure, it comes from the document that established it.
Numbers we will not publish
This is the part most sites do not tell you, and it explains why some of our pages give less than you expected.
We do not publish a dose, threshold, interval or price that we have not verified against a current source. Where a figure would be natural but we cannot confirm it, we say so and tell you where to get it, rather than filling the gap.
Some specific consequences of that policy:
- We do not publish unit conversion charts for compounded products, because the correct figure depends on the concentration of the vial in front of you and a decimal error is a tenfold overdose.
- We do not publish dose equivalences between different molecules, because no comparative study establishes one.
- We do not rank medications by trial percentages, because the trials people quote were separate programmes with different designs and were never built to be compared.
- We do not give a daily calorie target, because on a medication that suppresses appetite the realistic risk is eating too little.
In each case a number would perform better in search. We would rather be useful than complete.
Medical review
Articles covering clinical topics carry a named reviewer with their credentials and the date of review, shown on the article itself.
If an article does not display a reviewer line, it has not been through clinical review, and you should read it as consumer information rather than clinical guidance. We would rather show you that gap than hide it behind a generic byline.
Corrections
If something here is wrong, tell us at promozhub@gmail.com. We correct errors rather than quietly editing them, and substantive corrections are noted on the article with the date.
How we handle uncertainty
Some questions do not have settled answers. Long-term safety data is still accumulating. The human relevance of the thyroid finding in rodents is undetermined. The NAION question has moved and may move again.
Where the evidence is unresolved we say so plainly, rather than picking the reassuring version or the alarming one. Both are more satisfying to read and neither is accurate.
Commercial independence
Some links earn us commission, set out in our affiliate disclosure. Commission does not decide our conclusions or the order of a list.
The check you can apply: our guidance on choosing a telehealth provider tells you to verify prescribers and pharmacies against public licensing records, and to treat ranked lists carrying discount codes as paid placement. That advice costs us money.
What we are not
We are not a healthcare provider and cannot answer personal medical questions. See our medical disclaimer.