Draft synthesis: incretin receptor agonists in adolescents — disposition

§3Disposition and amendments

§3.1Disposition table

Table 1. Every submission with its disposition. Each row links to the submission in full.

§3.2Summary by disposition

Table 2. Counts by disposition, with the meaning of each.

§3.3Resulting amendments

1. Quantitative claims are reproduced without the method that produced them — arising from DRAFT-ADOLESCENT-S/013. Every quantitative claim now carries the determination that produced it at the point of use, and figures obtained by non-comparable methods are no longer presented in the same row or sentence.
2. Point estimates are given without an interval — arising from DRAFT-ADOLESCENT-S/004. Every estimate now carries its interval where the source reported one, and where it did not, the estimate is annotated as reported without an interval rather than left to appear as a precise figure.
3. Two included studies do not meet the registered eligibility criteria — arising from DRAFT-ADOLESCENT-S/015. One study has been removed from the included set and the estimate recomputed, the exclusion reason for the third study has been corrected in the excluded-studies table, and the screening decisions are now recorded against the protocol version in force at the…
4. The same concept is given three different names in one document — arising from DRAFT-ADOLESCENT-S/016. A single term is now used throughout for each defined concept, and the glossary entry is linked at first use within each section rather than once per document.
5. Intention-to-treat and efficacy-estimand results are combined without distinction — arising from DRAFT-ADOLESCENT-S/003. The treatment-policy estimand is used throughout as the primary analysis, the efficacy estimand is reported as a secondary analysis where available, and the estimand used is stated in every row of the summary of findings.
6. Absence of evidence is presented in a form a reader will take as negative evidence — arising from DRAFT-ADOLESCENT-S/009. A standing formulation has been adopted and is applied wherever an evidence gap is recorded, distinguishing an outcome assessed and not demonstrated from an outcome not assessed. The formulation is identical at every occurrence so that it can be recognised at…
7. A single-trial result is presented in the visual form of a pooled estimate — arising from DRAFT-ADOLESCENT-S/010. Outcomes contributed by a single trial are now reported without a pooled diamond, labelled as unreplicated, and downgraded for imprecision or inconsistency according to the framework rather than presented as a synthesis.
8. Doses differing several-fold are pooled without examining dose-response — arising from DRAFT-ADOLESCENT-S/001. Estimates are now reported by dose group, a dose-response examination is reported where three or more dose levels contribute, and the pooled across-dose estimate is removed rather than retained alongside.
9. The choice of effect measure is not justified and changes the appearance of the result — arising from DRAFT-ADOLESCENT-S/008. Every outcome now reports the relative effect and, where an assumed baseline risk can be stated and sourced, the corresponding absolute effect, with the baseline risk and its source given in the same row.
10. Registered trials that never reported are not counted anywhere in the review — arising from DRAFT-ADOLESCENT-S/011. Registered trials without posted results are now identified, counted and reported as a distinct category in the screening flow, with the proportion of registered participants they represent stated in the limitations.
11. The conclusion is stated more strongly than the certainty rating supports — arising from DRAFT-ADOLESCENT-S/012. Conclusion wording is now drawn from a fixed set of formulations tied to the certainty rating, so that a low certainty rating produces a statement that the evidence may suggest an effect and that the estimate is likely to change with further research.
12. Efficacy outcomes are rated for certainty and harms are not — arising from DRAFT-ADOLESCENT-S/014. Every reported harm now carries a certainty rating on the same scale as the efficacy outcomes, with the downgrade reasons stated, and discontinuation for adverse events appears in the summary of findings rather than in an annex.

References cited on this page

References are numbered in order of first citation in this document. Each superscript in the text links to its entry below.

1. International Organization for Standardization. ISO/IEC 17025:2017 General Requirements for the Competence of Testing and Calibration Laboratories. ISO/IEC Standard 2017;3rd edition. identifier not held by the Institute

Identifiers are reproduced only where the Institute holds them. Where a digital object identifier or PubMed identifier is not shown, the Institute has recorded the journal and year and has not constructed an identifier.