Draft synthesis: Mitochondria-targeted peptides in… — 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. Statistical heterogeneity is treated as though it measured clinical heterogeneity — arising from DRAFT-MITOCHONDRIA/001. The decision to pool is now justified in prose against the population, intervention, comparator and outcome before any statistic is presented, and the heterogeneity statistic is reported with its confidence interval and a note of the number of contributing…
2. Overlapping primary studies across included reviews are counted more than once — arising from DRAFT-MITOCHONDRIA/012. Overlap between included reviews is now assessed at primary-study level and reported in a citation matrix, and participant totals are reported for the union of primary studies rather than as a sum across reviews.
3. The review does not say when it will be updated or what would trigger an update — arising from DRAFT-MITOCHONDRIA/006. 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.
4. Subgroup findings are reported that were not registered in the protocol — arising from DRAFT-MITOCHONDRIA/005. 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.
5. Studies using different outcome definitions are pooled into one estimate — arising from DRAFT-MITOCHONDRIA/008. 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.
6. The review protocol is described but its registration record is not linked — arising from DRAFT-MITOCHONDRIA/003. Each synthesis now links its own protocol with the version in force at screening, and states explicitly where an external registration identifier is not held, so that the absence is a recorded fact.
7. The same concept is given three different names in one document — arising from DRAFT-MITOCHONDRIA/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.
8. A sponsor trial meeting the eligibility criteria was excluded — arising from DRAFT-MITOCHONDRIA/009. The trial is added to the included set, the estimate and the certainty rating have been recomputed, and the screening record now states why the trial was missed, which was a database indexing gap rather than a screening judgement. The submission is identified…
9. The document is unreadable without specialist training — arising from DRAFT-MITOCHONDRIA/010. Every document now opens with a plain-language summary of not more than 150 words, placed above the technical abstract and carrying the same certainty language, so that the two cannot diverge.

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.