Public comment period · §3
Draft synthesis: Dual and triple incretin receptor agonists… — 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-DUAL-VS-SING/004 | Ludmila Brackenridge | Absence of evidence is presented in a form a reader will take as negative evidence | Accepted |
| DRAFT-DUAL-VS-SING/003 | Dr Fenella Lavrentiev | The same concept is given three different names in one document | Accepted |
| DRAFT-DUAL-VS-SING/005 | Dr Hamish Nyquist-Obiora | Doses differing several-fold are pooled without examining dose-response | Accepted |
| DRAFT-DUAL-VS-SING/006 | Dr Marisol Dunmore-Ekpo | The document should state what a reader ought to do | Not accepted |
| DRAFT-DUAL-VS-SING/007 | Dr Frideswide Nordhagen | The review question is drawn too broadly to be answerable | Not accepted |
| DRAFT-DUAL-VS-SING/002 | Dr Wilhelmina Wintringham | Efficacy outcomes are rated for certainty and harms are not | Accepted |
| DRAFT-DUAL-VS-SING/001 | Dr Matthias Whitmarsh-Obi | The review does not say when it will be updated or what would trigger an update | Accepted |
| 7 submissions in total. | |||
§3.2Summary by disposition
Table 2. Counts by disposition, with the meaning of each.
| Disposition | Count | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| Accepted | 5 | 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 | 0 | 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 | 2 | 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
- Absence of evidence is presented in a form a reader will take as negative evidence — arising from DRAFT-DUAL-VS-SING/004. 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…
- The same concept is given three different names in one document — arising from DRAFT-DUAL-VS-SING/003. 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.
- Doses differing several-fold are pooled without examining dose-response — arising from DRAFT-DUAL-VS-SING/005. 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.
- Efficacy outcomes are rated for certainty and harms are not — arising from DRAFT-DUAL-VS-SING/002. 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 review does not say when it will be updated or what would trigger an update — arising from DRAFT-DUAL-VS-SING/001. Every synthesis now records a scheduled review date and a stated update trigger, being the reporting of a trial that would materially change the contributing evidence, and the registered trials capable of triggering an update are listed by name.
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-098/3 · https://compoundevidence.com/comment-periods/draft-dual-vs-single-agonist-weight-synthesis/disposition/ · retrieved 30 July 2026