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 Vittoria Quintanilha | Results at materially different follow-up durations are pooled | Accepted |
| DRAFT-NETWORK-TRAN/002 | Dr Vasilisa Immelmann | Regulatory assessment documents were not searched | Accepted in part |
| DRAFT-NETWORK-TRAN/003 | Dr Yaa Kettlewell | Statistical heterogeneity is treated as though it measured clinical heterogeneity | Accepted in part |
| DRAFT-NETWORK-TRAN/004 | Eamon Sandringham-Adu | The review protocol is described but its registration record is not linked | Accepted in part |
| DRAFT-NETWORK-TRAN/005 | Dr Kolawole Isaksen-Balogun | Intention-to-treat and efficacy-estimand results are combined without distinction | Accepted |
| DRAFT-NETWORK-TRAN/006 | Dr Oisín Rautavaara | The timepoint at which each outcome was extracted was chosen after the data were seen | Accepted |
| DRAFT-NETWORK-TRAN/007 | Dr Jozef Brandvold-Achterberg | Absence of evidence is presented in a form a reader will take as negative evidence | Accepted |
| DRAFT-NETWORK-TRAN/008 | Dr Piotr Hollingworth | Doses differing several-fold are pooled without examining dose-response | Accepted |
| DRAFT-NETWORK-TRAN/009 | Thaddeus Isaksen-Balogun | Overlapping primary studies across included reviews are counted more than once | Accepted |
| 9 submissions in total. | |||
§3.2Summary by disposition
Table 2. Counts by disposition, with the meaning of each.
| Disposition | Count | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| Accepted | 6 | 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 | 0 | 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
- Results at materially different follow-up durations are pooled — arising from DRAFT-NETWORK-TRAN/001. 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.
- Regulatory assessment documents were not searched — arising from DRAFT-NETWORK-TRAN/002. Published regulatory assessment documents are now searched as a named source, are reported as a distinct evidence class in the included-studies table, and contribute to the assessment while being excluded from pooled estimates where risk of bias could not be…
- Statistical heterogeneity is treated as though it measured clinical heterogeneity — arising from DRAFT-NETWORK-TRAN/003. 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…
- The review protocol is described but its registration record is not linked — arising from DRAFT-NETWORK-TRAN/004. 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.
- Intention-to-treat and efficacy-estimand results are combined without distinction — arising from DRAFT-NETWORK-TRAN/005. The treatment-policy estimand is used throughout as the primary analysis, the efficacy estimand is reported as a secondary analysis where available, and the estimand used is stated in every row of the summary of findings.
- The timepoint at which each outcome was extracted was chosen after the data were seen — arising from DRAFT-NETWORK-TRAN/006. 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.
- Absence of evidence is presented in a form a reader will take as negative evidence — arising from DRAFT-NETWORK-TRAN/007. 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…
- Doses differing several-fold are pooled without examining dose-response — arising from DRAFT-NETWORK-TRAN/008. Estimates are now reported by dose group, a dose-response examination is reported where three or more dose levels contribute, and the pooled across-dose estimate is removed rather than retained alongside.
- Overlapping primary studies across included reviews are counted more than once — arising from DRAFT-NETWORK-TRAN/009. 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.
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