Independent · non-commercial · publishes on a quarterly cycle|Current cycle 2026 Q3
Compound Evidence InstituteEvidence synthesis · established 2023Graded assessments of compounds, trials, methods and supply
Document set current to 30 July 2026
Public comment period · Evidence synthesis

Draft analytical review: surveys of unregulated peptide supply

Consultation on the draft analytical evidence review of published surveys of unregulated peptide supply. The review assesses what such surveys establish, and records that the great majority of them cannot establish the provenance of the material analysed and…

Document identifier
CEI-CP-027
Series
Public comment period
Version
1.0
Published
24 Sep 2025
Last reviewed
24 Sep 2025
Next review
24 Sep 2026
Identifier
10.71829/cei.cp.27
Certainty
Not rated
Cycle
2025 Q3
Window
10 Aug 2025 – 09 Sep 2025
Status
Closed
Submissions
14

§1Consultation and window

§1.1Window

Opened
10 August 2025
Closed
9 September 2025
Duration
30 days
Status
Closed — the disposition is published
Document under consultation
Synthesis: Analytical surveys of unregulated peptide supply
Submissions received
14

§1.2Consultation questions

The secretariat put the following questions. A submission was not required to address them and several did not; the questions record what the Institute was uncertain about rather than restricting what a respondent could raise.

  1. Is the provenance criterion applied consistently across the included surveys?
  2. Should a survey that cannot establish provenance be included at all, or excluded with the reason recorded?
  3. Does the review state clearly enough that a purity distribution across purchased samples is not an estimate of the purity distribution of any supplier's output?

§1.3How a submission is handled

  • Every submission is signed. The Institute publishes no anonymous submission.
  • Every submission carries a declared interest. A declaration of no interest is itself a declaration and is recorded as one. A declaration is not a disqualification and the Institute has never given a submission less weight on that ground.
  • A submission from an employee of a marketing-authorisation holder is identified as an industry submission on its face, following a unanimous consultation on the conflicts policy.
  • Every submission receives a secretariat response and a disposition. Submissions that are not accepted remain published in full; the Institute does not remove a submission because it disagrees with it.
  • There is no voting, no reputation score, no reply thread and no editing after receipt.

§1.4Outcome

The review was amended before ratification. Surveys without establishable provenance are included and reported separately from those with it, rather than pooled, and the distinction between a sample-level and a supplier-level claim is stated in the abstract.

The disposition table, listing each submission with its disposition and the resulting amendment, is at §3.

Nothing published by the Institute is medical advice, a diagnosis, a prescription, a treatment recommendation or a purchasing recommendation. Compounds supplied for research use are not approved for human or veterinary use in any jurisdiction, and a favourable analytical assessment of a supplier is not a statement that any product is safe or effective. The Institute publishes certainty ratings and never recommendations. No telephone number, messaging handle or ordering channel appears anywhere on this site.