Public comment period · §3
Draft synthesis: Dual and triple incretin receptor agonists… — 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-DUAL-VS-SING/001 | Ms Rhiannon Okoye-Vandergraaf | Patient-reported outcomes are collected by the trials and not reported by the review | Accepted in part |
| DRAFT-DUAL-VS-SING/002 | Thaddeus Isaksen-Balogun | The timepoint at which each outcome was extracted was chosen after the data were seen | Accepted |
| DRAFT-DUAL-VS-SING/003 | Dr Melisande Kirkpatrick-Ola | The review question is drawn too broadly to be answerable | Not accepted |
| DRAFT-DUAL-VS-SING/004 | Dr Leonhard Quenneville | The document should state what a reader ought to do | Not accepted |
| DRAFT-DUAL-VS-SING/005 | Dr Quentin Enthoven | Studies not published in English were excluded without assessment | Accepted in part |
| DRAFT-DUAL-VS-SING/006 | Stellan Cholmondeley-Ade | References should carry a persistent identifier for every cited source | Accepted in part |
| DRAFT-DUAL-VS-SING/007 | Dr Kolawole Isaksen-Balogun | A funnel plot is presented for a set too small to interpret it | Accepted |
| 7 submissions in total. | |||
§3.2Summary by disposition
Table 2. Counts by disposition, with the meaning of each.
| Disposition | Count | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| Accepted | 2 | 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 | 0 | 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 | 2 | 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
- Patient-reported outcomes are collected by the trials and not reported by the review — arising from DRAFT-DUAL-VS-SING/001. Patient-reported outcomes measured by any contributing trial are now reported narratively by instrument, with the instrument named and its minimum important difference stated where one is published, and the absence of a pooled estimate explained.
- The timepoint at which each outcome was extracted was chosen after the data were seen — arising from DRAFT-DUAL-VS-SING/002. The extraction timepoint is now prespecified in the protocol for new reviews. Where a review predates the requirement, estimates are reported at every timepoint the contributing trials report.
- Studies not published in English were excluded without assessment — arising from DRAFT-DUAL-VS-SING/005. Language restriction is removed from the protocol for the series, the records previously excluded on that ground are listed with their screening outcome, and the residual limitation is stated in the abstract of this review.
- References should carry a persistent identifier for every cited source — arising from DRAFT-DUAL-VS-SING/006. Every reference without a persistent identifier now carries an explicit statement that the identifier is not held by the Institute, so that its absence is a recorded fact rather than an apparent oversight.
- A funnel plot is presented for a set too small to interpret it — arising from DRAFT-DUAL-VS-SING/007. The funnel plot is removed for every outcome contributed by fewer than ten studies, and replaced by a statement that small-study effects could not be assessed at that number, together with the count of registered trials identified without posted results.
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-098/3 · https://compoundevidence.com/comment-periods/draft-dual-vs-single-agonist-weight-synthesis/disposition/ · retrieved 30 July 2026