Editorial process & sources.
How we research, write, and review GLP-1 coverage — and what separates our editorial work from our commercial partnerships.
What we publish
WeightSherpa is an independent comparison and guidance site covering GLP-1 medications, the telehealth programs that prescribe them, nutrition for GLP-1 patients, and the drug pipeline. Everything we publish has one of three goals: help a reader understand how a medication or program works, compare options against each other on a consistent scorecard, or answer a specific question with real data.
We do not practice medicine. Nothing on this site is a substitute for a conversation with a licensed prescriber, a pharmacist, or a dietitian. See our medical disclaimer for the full scope.
Source hierarchy
Every clinical claim on WeightSherpa is backed by an authoritative source, in roughly this order of precedence:
- Current FDA-approved labeling via DailyMed or drugs@FDA — the ground truth for what a drug is approved to do and at what doses.
- FDA MedWatch, FDA safety communications, and the FDA drug shortage list — for anything involving safety or compounding legality.
- Practice guidelines from major professional societies: American Diabetes Association, The Obesity Society, American Association of Clinical Endocrinology, Endocrine Society.
- Peer-reviewed randomized controlled trials and large cohort studies — the SURPASS / SURMOUNT / SUSTAIN / STEP / SELECT / ATTAIN trial families for GLP-1 effects and side effects.
- Manufacturer medical-information resources for on-label questions where published sources are sparse.
Press releases, social media, Reddit, compounding-pharmacy marketing copy, and influencer claims are not sources. We may describe them as phenomena (e.g. "Ozempic face" as a viral term), but they do not substantiate clinical claims.
How we rate programs
Every telehealth program we cover is scored 0–5 on six dimensions. The overall rating is the weighted mean of those six, rounded to one decimal place. It is calculated, not assigned — we do not set an overall score by hand and then reason backward to the subscores.
| Dimension | Weight | What it measures |
|---|---|---|
| Clinical depth | 25% | Intake rigor, whether baseline labs are required, prescriber credentials and access, follow-up cadence, and whether nutrition or behavioral support is included. |
| Product integrity | 20% | Whether medication is FDA-approved or compounded, the regulatory standing of the products sold, and how clearly the program discloses formulation, sourcing, and approval status. |
| Value | 20% | Total realistic monthly cost including medication at maintenance dose — not the advertised starting price — and how transparently that cost is presented. |
| Insurance navigation | 15% | Whether the program bills insurance, works prior authorizations, and accepts Medicare or Medicaid. |
| Access & speed | 10% | State availability, time from signup to first dose, and breadth of medication options including oral GLP-1s. |
| User experience | 10% | Support responsiveness, fulfillment and cold-chain reliability, cancellation and refund terms, and independently reported member satisfaction. |
Why clinical depth and product integrity carry the most weight. These are health decisions, not purchases. A program can be cheap, fast, and delightful to use while prescribing a product whose regulatory footing is unresolved, or while skipping the baseline labs that make a GLP-1 prescription safe. Our weighting reflects the order in which we think those things matter to a reader’s outcome.
What member reviews can and cannot tell us. We read Trustpilot, BBB complaints, and program-operated communities, and they inform the user-experience score. They do not inform the other five. Someone reporting that their medication arrived quickly and well packaged is giving us real information about fulfillment and none about whether the product they received is legally or clinically sound. Where a program’s review profile is company-claimed, solicited, or small, we say so rather than quoting the headline number alone.
Recalibration. Scores are recalculated whenever a program materially changes and at each scheduled review. When we revise the rubric itself we re-score every program against it in the same pass, so the set stays internally comparable. Our scores are not on the same scale as any other publication’s, and a program scoring below 3.0 here is not disqualified — it is a program whose tradeoffs we think a reader should understand before signing up.
Review cadence
GLP-1 coverage changes quickly. Our review cadence:
- Drug pages: reviewed quarterly, and immediately on any FDA label change, safety communication, new approval, or shortage-status change.
- Comparison pages: reviewed quarterly.
- Compounded-product content: reviewed monthly, because shortage-status changes affect legality.
- Pricing pages: reviewed monthly.
- Guides: reviewed on a rolling basis, with each page carrying a visible "Last reviewed" stamp.
AI assistance & human review
Parts of our editorial workflow use AI tools to draft, summarize, and cross-reference sources. Every page that touches clinical content — drug pages, dosing, safety, comparison, and any guide in the Medications, Nutrition, or Pipeline hub — is reviewed by a human editor before publication. That review is logged internally with the editor's name and date.
We do not use AI to generate patient testimonials, clinician quotes, or before/after photos. Under the Federal Trade Commission's 2024 endorsement rule, fake testimonials are a per-se violation — and they're corrosive to trust even where they're legal. We don't do it.
What we will not say
A few words and phrases do not appear on our site (outside of quoted source material), because they are either scientifically imprecise or legally fraught:
- We do not describe any drug as "safe" in the abstract. We describe what the drug has been evaluated for in which populations, and cite the trial.
- We do not describe weight loss as "guaranteed", a "miracle", or a "breakthrough". Those are FTC red-flag words in the weight-loss context.
- We do not describe a compounded product as "the same as", "identical to", "bioidentical to", or "equivalent to" a brand-name FDA-approved drug.
- We do not tell a reader their insurance "covers" a drug. We describe what plans typically cover and tell readers to verify with their plan.
- We do not claim our content is "recommended by doctors" unless we can name them and show the relationship.
Commercial separation
WeightSherpa earns revenue when readers sign up for some of the telehealth programs or purchase some of the products we cover. Every page with affiliate links carries a disclosure above the first link, per FTC Part 255. Sponsored placements are labeled clearly at the top of the page and are never called "reviews".
Our rankings are not for sale. Revenue share does not influence the order programs appear in our comparisons or the scores we assign. When a program we rank highly happens to be a commercial partner, it's because the program performed well on our rubric — not the reverse. If we drop a partner, that's reflected in the rankings too.
See our disclosure policy for the full framework.
Corrections & feedback
If you spot a factual error, a broken source link, or a claim that isn't substantiated by our stated source hierarchy, email hello@weightsherpa.com. We correct errors in the article itself and add a correction note when the correction is material.
Adverse event reporting
WeightSherpa is not a clinical service and cannot receive or act on adverse-event reports. If you believe you've had a serious reaction to a medication, contact your prescriber and report it to FDA MedWatch. For medical emergencies, call 911.