Adding the clinical framing, because it changes how the question reads. The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated. Those two sets overlap less than the confident tone of most write-ups suggests, and the second set is where nearly all the disagreement on this board comes from.

If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.

One concrete data point for the thread. Give anything pharmacological four weeks before you judge it, and give anything measured weekly a four-point rolling average before you call it a trend.

A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:

What would you measure differently if you were starting again?

labquiet_amy said:

Give anything pharmacological four weeks before you judge it, and give anything measured weekly a four-point rolling average before you call it a…

Filing a mild objection. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit. I would resist the confidence. Half of what this board was certain about two years ago has since been quietly dropped, and nobody went back to correct the threads.

Moderator note: a post naming a supplier has been edited. Discuss suppliers in the review sections, not here. Report rather than reply if it drifts again.