Public comment period · §3
Draft methodological review: transitivity in the incretin… — 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-NETWORK-TRAN/001 | Dr Eamon Immelmann | Studies using different outcome definitions are pooled into one estimate | Accepted |
| DRAFT-NETWORK-TRAN/005 | Dr Quintus Rautavaara | Declared interests should appear on the document rather than on a separate page | Noted, no amendment |
| DRAFT-NETWORK-TRAN/004 | Dr Henrike Jastrzębska | The document should state what a reader ought to do | Not accepted |
| DRAFT-NETWORK-TRAN/007 | Dr Wilhelmina Erlingsson | The document is unreadable without specialist training | Accepted in part |
| DRAFT-NETWORK-TRAN/006 | Dr Gervase Crickhowell | The review protocol is described but its registration record is not linked | Accepted in part |
| DRAFT-NETWORK-TRAN/002 | Dr Liesbeth Zaleski-Mbeki | Absence of evidence is presented in a form a reader will take as negative evidence | Accepted |
| DRAFT-NETWORK-TRAN/008 | Dr Adaeze Dunmore-Ekpo | Point estimates are given without an interval | Accepted in part |
| DRAFT-NETWORK-TRAN/003 | Dr Liesbeth Delacroix-Njoku | The review does not say when it will be updated or what would trigger an update | Accepted |
| DRAFT-NETWORK-TRAN/009 | Dr Hamish Nyquist-Obiora | Results at materially different follow-up durations are pooled | Accepted |
| 9 submissions in total. | |||
§3.2Summary by disposition
Table 2. Counts by disposition, with the meaning of each.
| Disposition | Count | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| Accepted | 4 | 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 | 3 | 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 | 1 | 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 | 1 | 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
- Studies using different outcome definitions are pooled into one estimate — arising from DRAFT-NETWORK-TRAN/001. 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 document is unreadable without specialist training — arising from DRAFT-NETWORK-TRAN/007. 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.
- The review protocol is described but its registration record is not linked — arising from DRAFT-NETWORK-TRAN/006. 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.
- Absence of evidence is presented in a form a reader will take as negative evidence — arising from DRAFT-NETWORK-TRAN/002. 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…
- Point estimates are given without an interval — arising from DRAFT-NETWORK-TRAN/008. 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.
- The review does not say when it will be updated or what would trigger an update — arising from DRAFT-NETWORK-TRAN/003. 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.
- Results at materially different follow-up durations are pooled — arising from DRAFT-NETWORK-TRAN/009. Estimates are now reported by duration band, with the number of contributing trials and participants in each band stated, and no estimate is pooled across bands.
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-009/3 · https://compoundevidence.com/comment-periods/draft-network-transitivity/disposition/ · retrieved 30 July 2026