In short: every factual or medical claim on a new or updated Sarmguide page is linked to a source that a member of the Editorial Team has opened and checked. Findings are labeled by the type of evidence behind them. Compound fact sheets add three simple scores from 0 to 3, articles show their publish date and the database shows when its data was last checked. This page explains each of those steps.
1. The types of evidence we use
Not all evidence is equal. A randomized trial in people tells you far more than a study in rats, and a forum post tells you less than either. In our fact sheets and tools, each finding carries one of these labels:
| Label | What it means | How much weight it carries |
|---|---|---|
| Meta-analysis / systematic review | A structured summary that pools the results of several studies. | The most weight, when the studies it pools are good ones. |
| Trial | People randomly given the compound or a placebo (or a comparator) and followed up. Includes phase 1–3 drug trials. | The strongest single study. We note the size, length and who took part (for example, older adults or cancer patients, not athletes). |
| Observational | People studied without random assignment: surveys, cohorts, records of users. | Shows associations, not cause and effect. |
| Case report | A published report of one patient or a small series. | Good at flagging rare or serious harms; cannot tell you how often they happen. |
| Animal | Studies in mice, rats, monkeys or other animals. | Useful for mechanism; doses and effects often don’t carry over to people. |
| Cell | Studies on cells or tissue in a dish. | Mechanism only. |
| Regulator review / regulator warning | Documents from bodies such as the FDA, TGA, MHRA, UK Anti-Doping or WADA: approvals, safety reviews, warning letters, prohibited lists. | The reference for legal status and official safety concerns. |
| Lab analysis | Chemical testing of products, for example studies that bought products online and measured what was actually inside. | Tells you about product quality, not about effects in the body. |
| Anecdotal | User reports on forums, social media or in older first-person articles. | Never treated as proof. We label it, and we never present it as a typical result. |
| Theoretical | Reasoning from how a compound works, with no direct data. | The least weight; always labeled as such. |
A concrete example of why lab analyses matter: when researchers bought 44 products sold online as SARMs and tested them, only 23 (52%) contained a SARM at all, and in only 18 (41%) did the amount match the label (Van Wagoner et al., JAMA 2017). That is lab analysis evidence about product quality; it says nothing about what the compounds do in the body.
2. How we check sources
- We open every source before citing it. For PubMed papers we check that the title, year and the finding we quote match the record. We never cite from memory.
- We prefer primary sources. The trial itself over a news story about it; the regulator’s own page over a summary.
- We quote what was measured. Who took part, how many, which dose, for how long and what changed.
- We separate people from animals. Animal and cell findings are always labeled as such.
- We date fast-changing facts. Legal status, anti-doping lists and shop details carry the date we checked them.
- If we can’t verify something, we leave it out or mark it “not established”.
3. The 0–3 scores on fact sheets
Compound fact sheets in the SARMs database carry three scores. Each one comes with a one-line reason and the source behind it, and a score is shown as “not established” when there isn’t enough data.
| Score | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Strength of evidence | Very limited: no human trials; animal, cell or anecdotal data only | Limited: one small human trial, or effects known mainly from animals | Moderate: several small human studies, or good trials for a narrow use | Strong: several randomized human trials, including larger or longer ones |
| Testosterone suppression | None reported, or hormones rose | Mild: small or inconsistent changes | Moderate: clear falls in total testosterone or SHBG in trials, or a strong signal in animals | Marked: large falls in testosterone and the hormones that drive it |
| Liver signal | None reported | Mild: occasional, reversible liver-enzyme rises | Moderate: dose-related enzyme rises in trials, or several case reports of liver injury | Marked: frequent enzyme rises in trials and many case reports of liver injury |
The scores summarize what has been published. They are not a safety rating and not a recommendation: a compound with “strong” evidence can still carry serious risks.
The suppression score always shows what it rests on: “human data” when testosterone was measured in people, “animal data” when only animal studies measured it. When there are no data, the database says “Not measured” rather than a score, because a missing measurement is not the same as “none found”.
How studies are counted
The “Human studies” number in the database, the compare tool, the charts and the fact sheets comes from one field in each compound record, so it is the same everywhere.
How studies are counted: "Human studies" is the number of published human treatment studies we found and read for a compound (trials and other studies that gave it to people). Animal, cell and anti-doping excretion studies are not counted, and a single case report is not a study. Searches of PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov were last run on 30 Oct 2026.
† For drugs with hundreds of trials (Anastrozole, Clomiphene, Enclomiphene, Tamoxifen, and Tesamorelin), the number is the PubMed records typed Clinical Trial or RCT that mention the drug, not studies read one by one. The count is a floor, not a census, and not a measure of quality.
4. Doses
When a page mentions a dose, it is the dose used in a published study, with the population, the length and the source: for example, “in the 12-month trial, older adults took 25 mg a day”. We don’t write personal protocols or cycle plans. Some older pages describe doses that users commonly report; in updated sections these are labeled as reports, with the evidence level stated.
5. Dates on pages
- Published on an article is the date it first appeared on Sarmguide.
- Last updated on a policy page means the date the page last changed.
- The SARMs database shows one date: when its data was last checked. Legal snapshots carry their own check dates.
We update pages when the evidence changes, for example when a trial reports, a regulator acts or the WADA List changes.
6. Vendor reviews
When we review a shop, we check its own public pages (lab reports, shipping, payment and quality policies) and write down what we saw and when. We don’t claim to have lab-tested products ourselves unless a page says exactly what was tested, by which lab and when. We don’t invent negative claims about any company. Partner links are disclosed on every page that has them; see our affiliate disclosure.
7. Corrections
If you find a mistake, email info@sarmguide.com with the page and, if you can, the source. We check it, fix the page if we got it wrong and, for anything that changes a conclusion, add a short correction note at the end of the page. More in our editorial policy.