Draft synthesis: incretin receptor agonists for metabolic… — submissions
The 12 submissions received, published in full with declared interests and secretariat responses.
§2Submissions and responses
12 submissions were received. Each is published in full below with its declared interest, the secretariat response and the disposition. The Institute publishes submissions it did not accept in the same form as those it did.
Quantitative claims are reproduced without the method that produced them
Several figures in the draft are quoted from sources that determined them by different methods. A figure obtained by one determination and a figure obtained by another are not comparable, and the draft places them in the same sentence without distinguishing them.
The respondent, an analytical chemist, proposes that every quantitative claim carry the method that produced it at the point of use rather than in the reference.
The secretariat accepts this submission. Placing two figures side by side is an implicit claim that they are the same kind of quantity, and in the cases identified they were not.
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.
Point estimates are given without an interval
Several estimates in the draft appear as single figures. The respondent states that a point estimate without an interval invites a precision the underlying data do not support, and that the effect is worst where the estimate is drawn from a small contributing set.
The respondent proposes that no point estimate appear anywhere in the document set without its interval, including in summary tables and in the abstract.
The secretariat accepts this submission in part. Intervals are added wherever the source reports one. The proposal is declined for figures the source published without an interval, because the Institute will not compute an interval a source did not report.
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.
Studies using different outcome definitions are pooled into one estimate
The contributing studies define the outcome in at least two ways, and the draft pools them. The respondent states that the resulting estimate is an average across definitions rather than an estimate of any one quantity.
The respondent proposes that studies be pooled only within a definition, and that the definitions be reported separately with their own certainty ratings.
The secretariat accepts this submission. Pooling across definitions produces a figure with no referent, and the draft did it without saying so.
Studies are now pooled only within an outcome definition, each definition is reported with its own estimate and certainty rating, and the summary of findings states which definition each row concerns.
The choice of effect measure is not justified and changes the appearance of the result
The draft reports relative effects for benefits and absolute effects for harms. The respondent states that the combination flatters the intervention and that the choice should be justified or made uniform.
The respondent proposes that both relative and absolute effects be reported for every outcome.
The secretariat accepts this submission in part. Both measures are reported for every outcome where the baseline risk needed for the absolute effect can be stated. Where it cannot, the relative effect is reported alone with the reason.
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.
The search date is not on the face of the document
The draft carries a publication date and a review date but not the date on which the evidence was last searched. Those are three different dates and only the third tells a reader how current the assessment is. A document published in one quarter may rest on a search run two quarters earlier, and nothing on the page allows that gap to be measured.
The respondent proposes that the search date be printed adjacent to every certainty rating rather than in the methods section, on the ground that a reader who acts on a rating is unlikely to have read the methods section first.
The secretariat accepts this submission. The distinction between publication, review and search dates is real and the draft did not make it visible where it mattered.
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.
A single-trial result is presented in the visual form of a pooled estimate
An outcome contributed by one trial is presented in the same forest plot format as outcomes contributed by several. The respondent states that the format carries an implication of replication that a single trial does not have.
The respondent proposes that single-trial outcomes be presented differently and labelled as unreplicated.
The secretariat accepts this submission. The form of a graphic is part of what it asserts.
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.
A sortable table implies a comparison the underlying data do not support
The draft presents a sortable table whose columns are drawn from sources of differing quality. The respondent states that sorting on such a column produces an ordering that looks like a ranking and is not one.
The respondent proposes that sorting be disabled on any column whose values are not commensurable.
The secretariat notes this submission and records that the point is correct in principle.
No amendment arises here because every sortable table in the document set already carries a standing statement above it that the ordering is not a ranking and that the values in each column are commensurable only where the column header says so. The proposal to disable sorting was considered and not adopted, because a reader who cannot sort a table generally sorts it elsewhere and without the statement.
Intention-to-treat and efficacy-estimand results are combined without distinction
Several contributing trials report both a treatment-policy result and an efficacy result that censors at discontinuation. The draft draws from whichever is reported first in each paper.
The respondent, a trial statistician, states that the two answer different questions, that the difference is substantial where discontinuation is common, and that a synthesis should choose one and say which.
The secretariat accepts this submission. Mixing estimands within a single pooled estimate is a defect of the synthesis rather than of the trials.
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.
The review question is drawn too broadly to be answerable
The respondent states that the population as registered spans groups in which the intervention would be expected to behave differently, and that a single estimate across them is uninformative.
The respondent proposes that the question be split and the review re-registered.
The secretariat does not accept this submission. The breadth was registered before screening, the pre-specified subgroups address the variation the respondent identifies, and re-registering after the results are known would convert a pre-specified analysis into a post hoc one.
The question stands as registered. The point is recorded in the limitations, and the assessment committee has noted it for the protocol of the next version of this review, which will be registered before the search is run. The submission remains published in full.
Subgroup findings are reported that were not registered in the protocol
The draft reports differences between subgroups that do not appear in the registered protocol. The respondent states that unregistered subgroup analysis is hypothesis-generating and that the draft presents it in the same form as the pre-specified results.
The respondent proposes that unregistered analyses be removed.
The secretariat accepts this submission in part. The analyses are retained and relabelled rather than removed, because removing an analysis that was conducted leaves no record that it was.
Every subgroup analysis is now labelled as pre-specified or post hoc against the registered protocol, post hoc analyses are reported in a separate subsection without a certainty rating, and the protocol version against which the labelling was made is stated.
Regulatory assessment documents were not searched
The respondent states that regulatory assessment reports frequently contain analyses that never appear in journals, and that a search limited to bibliographic databases will miss them.
The respondent proposes that regulatory documents be searched for every review in the series.
The secretariat accepts this submission in part. Regulatory assessment documents are searched. The proposal that they be treated as equivalent to a full study report is declined, because the level of detail varies and is often insufficient for risk-of-bias assessment.
Published regulatory assessment documents are now searched as a named source, are reported as a distinct evidence class in the included-studies table, and contribute to the assessment while being excluded from pooled estimates where risk of bias could not be assessed from the document.
Two factual descriptions of the sponsor's programme are inaccurate
The submission is made on behalf of the marketing-authorisation holder and is confined to two matters of fact. The draft describes a trial as terminated where the sponsor closed it at a pre-specified interim analysis, and gives a dose in a unit that does not match the approved labelling.
Supporting documentation, comprising the published trial report and the current summary of product characteristics, accompanied the submission. No view is expressed on the certainty ratings, which the sponsor considers a matter for the assessment committee.
The secretariat accepts this submission. Both points are matters of fact, both were checkable against documents the Institute holds, and both were wrong in the draft.
The trial status now reads as completed at a pre-specified interim analysis, with the analysis identified, and the dose is stated in the unit used in the approved labelling. The submission is identified as an industry submission on its face in accordance with the conflicts policy.
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.