Age-period-cohort (APC) models are often used to decompose health trends into period- and cohort-based sources, but their use in epidemiology and population sciences remains contentious. Central to the contention are researchers' failures to 1) clearly state their analytic assumptions and/or 2) thoroughly evaluate model results. These failures often produce varying conclusions across APC studies and generate confusion about APC methods. Consequently, scholarly exchanges about APC methods usually result in strong disagreements that rarely offer practical advice to users or readers of APC methods. We use research guidelines to help practitioners of APC methods articulate their analytic assumptions and validate their results. To demonstrate the usefulness of the guidelines, we apply them to a 2015 American Journal of Epidemiology study about trends in black-white differences in U.S. heart disease mortality. The application of the guidelines highlights two important findings. On the one hand, some APC methods produce inconsistent results that are highly sensitive to researcher manipulation. On the other hand, other APC methods estimate results that are robust to researcher manipulation and consistent across APC models. The exercise shows the simplicity and effectiveness of the guidelines in resolving disagreements over APC results. The cautious use of APC models can generate results that are consistent across methods and robust to researcher manipulation. If followed, the guidelines can likely reduce the chance of publishing variable and conflicting results across APC studies.