Public comment period · §3
Draft analytical review: surveys of unregulated peptide supply — 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-ANALYTICAL-S/001 | Dr Perpetua Haverkamp-Diallo industry | The document should not describe uses outside the approved indication | Not accepted |
| DRAFT-ANALYTICAL-S/002 | Dr Quentin Zimmerthal | The draft moves between purity and content as though they were one quantity | Accepted |
| DRAFT-ANALYTICAL-S/003 | Dr Melisande Thorsby-Nakamura | Independent results are not paired with the certificate figure for the same lot | Accepted |
| DRAFT-ANALYTICAL-S/004 | Dr Eamon Immelmann | Quantitative claims are reproduced without the method that produced them | Accepted |
| DRAFT-ANALYTICAL-S/005 | Dr Anselm Thorsby-Nakamura | The chain of custody between purchase and analysis is not described | Noted, no amendment |
| DRAFT-ANALYTICAL-S/006 | Dr Jolanta Uttridge | Contributing results are reported in units that were not converted before pooling | Accepted |
| DRAFT-ANALYTICAL-S/007 | Gervase Crickhowell | Whether the analyst knew the source of each sample is not reported | Noted, no amendment |
| DRAFT-ANALYTICAL-S/008 | Professor Bartolomeu Nkosi-Lindegaard | Contributing surveys anonymise their sources to different degrees | Noted, no amendment |
| DRAFT-ANALYTICAL-S/009 | Dr Séverine Oduya-Kaltenbrunner | What the contributing methods could not have detected is not stated | Accepted in part |
| DRAFT-ANALYTICAL-S/010 | Dr Sigrún Vercingetorix | Results below the limit of quantitation are treated as zero | Accepted |
| DRAFT-ANALYTICAL-S/011 | Dr Kamila Glendinning-Uche | Content results are reported without the standard they were assigned against | Accepted |
| DRAFT-ANALYTICAL-S/012 | Dr Vittoria Quintanilha | The search was limited by publication date and the limit is not justified | Accepted in part |
| DRAFT-ANALYTICAL-S/013 | Stellan Cholmondeley-Ade | A superseded version should remain reachable from the version that replaced it | Noted, no amendment |
| DRAFT-ANALYTICAL-S/014 | Dr Yusuf Whitmarsh-Obi | One laboratory contributes most of the results in the pooled set | Accepted |
| 14 submissions in total. | |||
§3.2Summary by disposition
Table 2. Counts by disposition, with the meaning of each.
| Disposition | Count | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| Accepted | 7 | 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 | 2 | 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 | 4 | 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
- The draft moves between purity and content as though they were one quantity — arising from DRAFT-ANALYTICAL-S/002. Purity and content are now reported in separate sections, each opening with a statement of what the quantity establishes, and no summary sentence in the review carries both without saying that they answer different questions.
- Independent results are not paired with the certificate figure for the same lot — arising from DRAFT-ANALYTICAL-S/003. The primary analysis is now the paired difference on lots holding both figures, the number of such lots is stated, and the unpaired results are reported separately as descriptive and are not used to support the answer to the review question.
- Quantitative claims are reproduced without the method that produced them — arising from DRAFT-ANALYTICAL-S/004. 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.
- Contributing results are reported in units that were not converted before pooling — arising from DRAFT-ANALYTICAL-S/006. Every result is now reported in a single unit stated at the head of the table, the figure as published is retained beside it, and the conversion applied is stated so that either figure can be checked against the source.
- What the contributing methods could not have detected is not stated — arising from DRAFT-ANALYTICAL-S/009. Every reported absence now carries the detection scope of the method behind it, and the review states in its abstract that an absence in this evidence base is an absence within a stated scope rather than an absence in the material.
- Results below the limit of quantitation are treated as zero — arising from DRAFT-ANALYTICAL-S/010. Results below the quantitation limit are now reported as such with the limit stated, the convention used in pooled estimates is stated in the methods, and a sensitivity analysis under an alternative convention is reported alongside.
- Content results are reported without the standard they were assigned against — arising from DRAFT-ANALYTICAL-S/011. Every content result now records the standard against which it was assigned, results with no stated standard are reported in a separate table and excluded from pooled estimates, and the distinction is stated in the summary of findings.
- The search was limited by publication date and the limit is not justified — arising from DRAFT-ANALYTICAL-S/012. Every date limit in the series now carries its justification in the search-strategy section. Limits that could not be justified on re-examination have been removed and the affected searches re-run.
- One laboratory contributes most of the results in the pooled set — arising from DRAFT-ANALYTICAL-S/014. The contribution of each laboratory is now tabulated, a leave-one-laboratory-out analysis is reported for every pooled estimate, and the concentration is stated as a reason in the certainty rating where it bears on one.
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-027/3 · https://compoundevidence.com/comment-periods/draft-analytical-survey-review/disposition/ · retrieved 30 July 2026