Public comment period · §3
Draft synthesis: Human evidence for BPC-157 — disposition
The disposition of every submission and the amendments that resulted.
§3Disposition and amendments
§3.1Disposition table
Table 1. Every submission with its disposition. Each row links to the submission in full.
| Reference | Respondent | Point raised | Disposition |
|---|---|---|---|
| DRAFT-BPC-157-HUMA/003 | Sigrún Vercingetorix | Efficacy outcomes are rated for certainty and harms are not | Accepted |
| DRAFT-BPC-157-HUMA/002 | Dr Wilhelmina Oppenheimer-Ade | The same concept is given three different names in one document | Accepted |
| DRAFT-BPC-157-HUMA/004 | Dr Odalys Thorsby-Nakamura | The search date is not on the face of the document | Accepted |
| DRAFT-BPC-157-HUMA/001 | Dr Anselm Mountstephen | Studies not published in English were excluded without assessment | Accepted in part |
| 4 submissions in total. | |||
§3.2Summary by disposition
Table 2. Counts by disposition, with the meaning of each.
| Disposition | Count | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| Accepted | 3 | The submission is accepted and the draft is amended as proposed. The amendment is recorded in the amendment log of the document it changed and is traceable to the numbered submission. |
| Accepted in part | 1 | 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. |
| Noted, no amendment | 0 | The submission raises a point the Institute accepts but that does not require a change to the draft, most often because the draft already states it elsewhere. The location is given in the response. |
| Not accepted | 0 | The submission is not accepted. The secretariat response gives the reason. A submission that is not accepted remains published in full; the Institute does not remove a submission because it disagrees with it. |
§3.3Resulting amendments
- Efficacy outcomes are rated for certainty and harms are not — arising from DRAFT-BPC-157-HUMA/003. 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.
- The same concept is given three different names in one document — arising from DRAFT-BPC-157-HUMA/002. 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.
- The search date is not on the face of the document — arising from DRAFT-BPC-157-HUMA/004. The search date is now printed adjacent to every certainty rating and is carried in the document metadata, so that the interval between the search and the reading is visible without reference to the methods section.
- Studies not published in English were excluded without assessment — arising from DRAFT-BPC-157-HUMA/001. Language restriction is removed from the protocol for the series, the records previously excluded on that ground are listed with their screening outcome, and the residual limitation is stated in the abstract of this review.
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.
- 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.
Compound Evidence Institute · CEI-CP-107/3 · https://compoundevidence.com/comment-periods/draft-bpc-157-human-evidence-synthesis/disposition/ · retrieved 30 July 2026