Methodology
This page explains how we research an article, which sources we trust in what order, how we keep pieces current, and — for the day we publish patterns from our own app — how we protect user privacy.
Our source hierarchy
When sources disagree, we defer to the more authoritative one, in this order:
- Regulatory drug labels (US FDA prescribing information, EMA/EU SmPC) for approved uses, dosing and safety warnings.
- Peer-reviewed randomized controlled trials (for example the STEP, SURMOUNT, SELECT and FLOW programs) for efficacy and outcome data.
- Systematic reviews and meta-analyses for the weight of evidence across trials.
- Guidelines and statements from established medical organizations.
We treat news articles, press releases and social media as leads to verify, never as the source itself.
Fact-checking
Numbers, dosing schedules and safety claims are traced back to the primary source and quoted in context — including the denominator and the limitations. We try not to strip a statistic of the caveat that makes it honest. If the evidence is weak or mixed, we say so plainly rather than rounding it up.
Keeping articles current
GLP-1 science and regulation move quickly. We date every article, revise pieces when approvals, labels or major trial results change, and update the revision date when we do.
When we report our own app's data
Some of the most useful things we can share are patterns from real Blueshot users — for example how side-effect reports change week by week. When we publish these, we follow strict rules: only aggregated, de-identified data; never an individual's record; a minimum cohort size so no one can be singled out; and cohort sizes reported as ranges. We describe these as observed patterns among app users, not as clinical findings or medical advice, and we state the limitations (self-reported, self-selected users) openly.