Independent · non-commercial · publishes on a quarterly cycle|Current cycle 2026 Q3
Compound Evidence InstituteEvidence synthesis · established 2023Graded assessments of compounds, trials, methods and supply
Document set current to 30 July 2026
Evidence synthesis · §3

Mitochondria-targeted peptides in bioenergetic disorders — included and excluded studies

The included-studies table with extracted data, the exclusions with reasons, and the risk-of-bias judgements.

Document identifier
CEI-ES-032/3
Series
Evidence synthesis
Version
3.1
Published
25 Nov 2024
Last reviewed
25 Jul 2025
Next review
25 Jan 2027
Identifier
10.71829/cei.syn.32
Certainty
Low
Cycle
2024 Q4
Review type
Intervention review
Search executed
25 Aug 2024

§3Included and excluded studies

Every study contributing to this review is listed below with the data extracted from it. The extraction table is published at the level of the individual outcome and study so that the synthesis can be checked without the reader having to retrieve each source.

§3.1Included studies

Table 4. Included studies with the characteristics extracted from each.

StudyDesignRandomisedDurationAnchor outcome as reportedYear
MMPOWER-3SS-31 (elamipretide)Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled21824 weeksNeither primary endpoint was met. The Institute records MMPOWER-3 as a negative phase 3 result and treats it as informative evidence rather than as an absence…2022
MMPOWER-2SS-31 (elamipretide)Randomised crossover304 weeks per periodAn increase in six-minute walk distance in a crossover design with a small sample2018
2 included studies. Each links to its structured abstract, which carries a field-by-field provenance table distinguishing extracted figures from Institute reconstructions.

Contributing participants across studies reporting a randomised total: 248. Studies for which the Institute does not hold a randomised total contribute to the qualitative synthesis and not to any pooled figure.

§3.2Excluded at full text, with reasons

Table 5. Reports excluded at full text, by reason. A review that reports an exclusion count without reasons cannot be checked against its own protocol.

Reason for exclusionReports
Not a randomised comparison2
Population outside the review question2
Intervention outside the review question1
Comparator not eligible2
No eligible outcome reported4
Duplicate report of an included study2
Conference abstract without extractable data3
Retracted or subject to an expression of concern4
15 reports excluded at full text in total.

§3.3Risk of bias across included studies

Table 6. Risk-of-bias judgement recorded for each included study on the review's anchor outcome.

StudyRisk of biasInconsistencyIndirectnessImprecisionPublication bias
MMPOWER-3LowSomeLowLowLow
MMPOWER-2LowLowSomeLowLow
Judgements are the Institute's own and are recorded per outcome. A study may carry a different judgement in a different review that assesses a different outcome from it.
Nothing published by the Institute is medical advice, a diagnosis, a prescription, a treatment recommendation or a purchasing recommendation. Compounds supplied for research use are not approved for human or veterinary use in any jurisdiction, and a favourable analytical assessment of a supplier is not a statement that any product is safe or effective. The Institute publishes certainty ratings and never recommendations. No telephone number, messaging handle or ordering channel appears anywhere on this site.