Consultation record
Submissions accepted in part — page 4
Part of the submission is accepted and part is not. The secretariat response states which part is which and on what ground the remainder was declined.
Submissions
390 documents · page 4 of 13
Table 1. Submissions with this disposition, on this page.
| Reference | Consultation | Respondent | Point raised |
|---|---|---|---|
| DRAFT-MASH-SYNTHES/005 | Draft synthesis: incretin receptor agonists for metabolic… | Dr Perpetua Haverkamp-Diallo industry | A sponsor trial meeting the eligibility criteria was excluded |
| DRAFT-MASH-SYNTHES/006 | Draft synthesis: incretin receptor agonists for metabolic… | Dr Wojciech Kaltenbach-Mensah | A surrogate outcome is used as the anchor without validation evidence |
| DRAFT-MASH-SYNTHES/009 | Draft synthesis: incretin receptor agonists for metabolic… | Dr Jozef Brandvold-Achterberg | Two included studies do not meet the registered eligibility criteria |
| DRAFT-MASH-SYNTHES/012 | Draft synthesis: incretin receptor agonists for metabolic… | Dr Oisín Rautavaara | Crossover trials are pooled with parallel-group trials without adjustment |
| DRAFT-ADOLESCENT-S/001 | Draft synthesis: incretin receptor agonists in adolescents | Professor Bartolomeu Nkosi-Lindegaard | Regulatory assessment documents were not searched |
| DRAFT-ADOLESCENT-S/012 | Draft synthesis: incretin receptor agonists in adolescents | Dr Kolawole Isaksen-Balogun | Point estimates are given without an interval |
| DRAFT-ADOLESCENT-S/014 | Draft synthesis: incretin receptor agonists in adolescents | Thaddeus Isaksen-Balogun | Subgroup findings are reported that were not registered in the protocol |
| DRAFT-ANALYTICAL-S/009 | Draft analytical review: surveys of unregulated peptide supply | Dr Séverine Oduya-Kaltenbrunner | What the contributing methods could not have detected is not stated |
| DRAFT-ANALYTICAL-S/012 | Draft analytical review: surveys of unregulated peptide supply | Dr Vittoria Quintanilha | The search was limited by publication date and the limit is not justified |
| DRAFT-REGISTRY-STR/001 | Draft structure of the document registry | Dr Leonhard Quenneville | The anchor outcome for an indication is not the outcome a decision turns on |
| DRAFT-REGISTRY-STR/008 | Draft structure of the document registry | Dr Jerome Petrossian | A surrogate anchor should not be permitted at all |
| DRAFT-TOOLS-DISCLA/007 | Draft terms for the Institute’s calculators | Dr Emiliana Ollerenshaw | Funding should not be accepted from any party the Institute assesses |
| DRAFT-TOOLS-DISCLA/010 | Draft terms for the Institute’s calculators | Yolanda Norrington-Bhatt | A four-week window is too short for a respondent without institutional support |
| DRAFT-TOOLS-DISCLA/012 | Draft terms for the Institute’s calculators | Quentin Whitmarsh-Obi | References should carry a persistent identifier for every cited source |
| DRAFT-TOOLS-DISCLA/017 | Draft terms for the Institute’s calculators | Dr Constança Glendinning-Uche | The secretariat answers submissions and is not itself named |
| DRAFT-ORFORGLIPRON/002 | Draft monograph: orforglipron | Dr Leonhard Quenneville | The mechanism section is written with more confidence than the clinical section it precedes |
| DRAFT-METHODOLOGY-/001 | Draft methodology document, version 4 | Dr Vasilisa Immelmann | The treatment of sponsor-conducted evidence is unworkable where all the evidence is… |
| DRAFT-METHODOLOGY-/003 | Draft methodology document, version 4 | Dr Oisín Rautavaara | The framework does not say when a concern warrants one level and when it warrants two |
| DRAFT-METHODOLOGY-/005 | Draft methodology document, version 4 | Ivo Mountstephen | References should carry a persistent identifier for every cited source |
| DRAFT-METHODOLOGY-/016 | Draft methodology document, version 4 | Dr Kolawole Isaksen-Balogun | The conditions for upgrading observational evidence are too permissive |
| DRAFT-METHODOLOGY-/018 | Draft methodology document, version 4 | Dr Ndidi Ravensworth-Ilunga | Preprints and conference abstracts are excluded categorically |
| DRAFT-METHODOLOGY-/020 | Draft methodology document, version 4 | Dr Yusuf Whitmarsh-Obi | Automated assistance in screening should be disclosed and validated |
| DRAFT-SUPPLIERS-CO/006 | Draft supplier comparison table | Amara Vandergraaf | The front matter delays the reader from reaching the assessment |
| DRAFT-SUPPLIERS-CO/008 | Draft supplier comparison table | Yolanda Norrington-Bhatt | A wide table is unusable on a telephone |
| DRAFT-SUPPLIERS-CO/010 | Draft supplier comparison table | Thaddeus Isaksen-Balogun | Point estimates are given without an interval |
| DRAFT-RETATRUTIDE-/002 | Draft monograph: retatrutide | Dr Fenella Steenkamp-Ferreira | The interaction section lists mechanisms rather than interactions |
| DRAFT-RETATRUTIDE-/003 | Draft monograph: retatrutide | Dr Henrike Jastrzębska | The recorded evidence gaps omit outcomes a reader would consider material |
| DRAFT-RETATRUTIDE-/008 | Draft monograph: retatrutide | Dr Wolfram Quintanilha industry | The monograph should reproduce the approved labelling rather than paraphrase it |
| DRAFT-RETATRUTIDE-/012 | Draft monograph: retatrutide | Dr Leonhard Quenneville | The mechanism section is written with more confidence than the clinical section it precedes |
| DRAFT-MELANOCORTIN/001 | Draft scoping review: melanocortin receptor agonists | Dr Jozef Brandvold-Achterberg | The same concern is used to downgrade in two domains |
page 4 of 13