Draft structure of the document registry — submissions
The 9 submissions received, published in full with declared interests and secretariat responses.
§2Submissions and responses
9 submissions were received. Each is published in full below with its declared interest, the secretariat response and the disposition. The Institute publishes submissions it did not accept in the same form as those it did.
The anchor outcome for an indication is not the outcome a decision turns on
This submission addresses structure of the document registry from the standpoint of a reader arriving from a search engine rather than from the front page.
The respondent, a practising clinician, states that for two indications in the draft set the anchor is the outcome most often measured rather than the outcome that would determine whether to treat.
The respondent proposes that the anchors be changed and gives the alternatives.
The secretariat accepts this submission in part. One anchor is changed. The other is retained because no contributing trial measures the alternative, and an anchor no study reports produces a series of documents that can report nothing.
One anchor outcome is changed to the outcome proposed, and the second is retained with the alternative recorded as the preferred anchor and listed as an evidence gap, so that the reason for the compromise is on the record.
The registry is published only as pages and not in a form that can be processed
Having read the draft of structure of the document registry, the respondent puts one point to the secretariat.
The respondent, who works with the register programmatically, states that examining the document set as a whole requires extracting fields from rendered pages, and that a structured record would make the registry usable for research about the Institute itself.
The respondent proposes that the registry fields be published in a structured form alongside the pages.
The secretariat accepts this submission. A body that asks others to publish checkable records should publish one.
The registry fields are now emitted in a structured form alongside the rendered pages, carrying the identifier, series, type, version, dates, certainty rating and status for every document, and the structured record is regenerated with the site so that it cannot drift from the pages.
Declared interests should appear on the document rather than on a separate page
The respondent notes that structure of the document registry will govern a great many documents, and submits accordingly.
The draft links to a central conflicts register. The respondent argues that a reader assessing whether to rely on a particular document should not have to leave it to find out who assessed it and what they declared.
The respondent proposes that the interests of every named contributor to a document be printed on that document.
The secretariat notes this submission and records that the draft already provides for it, which the respondent could reasonably have missed because the provision sits in an appendix.
Every document carries the declared interests of its named contributors in its front matter, and the central register exists so that a reader can see a person across all documents rather than one at a time. No amendment arises; the provision has been moved from the appendix into the body of the methodology document so that it is findable.
Four dates are given and their relation is not explained
The respondent submits on structure of the document registry. A document series is a set of promises about where things will be found, and this submission concerns one of them.
Published, last reviewed, next review and the search date all appear. A reader has to work out which one tells them how current the assessment is, and the answer is not the largest of them.
The respondent proposes a one-line gloss on the metadata block stating which date answers that question.
The secretariat accepts this submission.
The metadata block now carries a one-line gloss stating that the search date determines how current the evidence assessment is, and that a later review date without a later search date means the document was checked and not re-searched.
A printed copy loses the document identifier
The draft of structure of the document registry was read from the standpoint of someone who will navigate the series rather than write for it.
A page printed and circulated arrives without the identifier, the version or the date, so a recipient cannot tell whether it is current or find it again.
The respondent proposes that the print stylesheet carry all three in a footer on every page.
The secretariat accepts this submission.
The print stylesheet now carries the document identifier, the version, the publication date and the address in a footer on every printed page.
The same quantity is presented differently in two series
The respondent read structure of the document registry in draft and has confined this submission to a single provision.
The respondent states that a certainty rating is displayed one way in the monograph series and another in the synthesis series, and that a reader moving between them cannot be sure the two mean the same thing.
The respondent proposes a single presentation across all series.
The secretariat accepts this submission. A difference in presentation is read as a difference in meaning.
Certainty ratings are now presented identically across every series, using the same badge, the same wording and the same accompanying formulation, and the presentation is specified in the series structure document rather than left to each series.
The front-matter summary describes the finding without stating it
The respondent has read structure of the document registry in draft and makes one submission.
The summary says that an effect was observed and of what certainty. It does not give the estimate. A reader who reads only the summary, which is most readers, comes away with a direction and no magnitude.
The respondent proposes that the summary carry the principal estimate with its interval.
The secretariat accepts this submission.
The front-matter summary now carries the principal estimate with its interval and its certainty rating, so that the three travel together wherever the summary is quoted.
A surrogate anchor should not be permitted at all
The respondent’s comment on structure of the document registry arises from consulting the series for reference rather than writing for it.
The respondent states that permitting a surrogate anchor allows a series of documents to be built on a relationship that has not been demonstrated for the population in question.
The respondent proposes that surrogates be excluded from the anchor set.
This submission is made in the same spirit as submission 007 and on a different aspect of the draft.
The secretariat accepts this submission in part. A surrogate anchor is permitted only where the validation evidence is stated and rated. It is not excluded, because for several indications the alternative is to have no anchor and therefore no series.
A surrogate may now serve as an anchor only where the document states the evidence for the surrogate relationship in the population concerned and rates that evidence separately, and every document with a surrogate anchor carries the rating on its face.
A document does not show what draws on it
This submission concerns the draft of structure of the document registry. The respondent’s interest is in retrieval: whether a document can be found again, and cited, after it has been superseded.
A trial abstract is cited by monographs and syntheses. The abstract itself does not list them, so a reader who finds the trial cannot see how it has been used.
The respondent proposes a citing-documents list on every document that others draw on.
The secretariat accepts this submission.
Every trial abstract and every bibliography entry now carries a list of the documents that draw on it, generated from the citations themselves so that it cannot fall out of step.
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.